I'm slowly starting to suspect that David O'Russell may be some sort of genius. I watched Silver Linings Playbook (and gave it a rather good review here) back in November and adored the way he brought the difficult subject material of mental health to the screen in such a way that it is now much easier to talk about it - to identify with different members of the family that were portrayed.
The genius lies in the way he can bring actors out of themselves and truly become the character. He did it with Jennifer Lawrence (who is an astonishing talent anyway) and Bradley Cooper in Silver Linings, and he also achieved another amazing family in 2010's The Fighter.
Now the only reason I have not given this film a full five stars is because the subject matter - boxing - is not entirely my cup of tea so I'm not itching to watch it again. But it is most certainly brilliant.
The Fighter is the true story of boxer 'Irish' Micky Ward and his crack addicted brother, former boxer Dicky Ecklund, and their quest to make Micky a prize fighter.
It is half movie half documentary as it begins with the filming of Dicky and his 'comeback' by HBO - who are actually making a film about crack addiction. It follows the few ups and huge amount of downs faced by the Ward family, their dysfunction, and those who surround them as Micky tries to win fights while his family are at each others throats.
What this film really showcases, as Silver Linings does too, is family dysfunction and the bonds that are held by blood. In The Fighter Micky (played brilliantly by Mark Wahlberg) has to contend with a brother who is nine years older than himself and therefore an obvious childhood hero, but who has fallen so far off the pedestal with his addiction - a pedestal that their mother, Alice, has kept Dicky on.
The two Oscar winning performances in this film are thoroughly deserved - Christian Bale is just extraordinary as Dicky, going from crack addiction, through prison to coming out the other end a better man....? I'm not spoiling it for those who don't know the real story. But seriously his performance alone is worth watching this film for, and there are an abundance of reasons to watch this film.
Melissa Leo, now I had never heard of her until she swore upon receipt of her Oscar for this role, but blimey can she act. She was ABHORRENT as the mother/manager of Micky - you'll know what I mean, all the women in this family are excruciating at times. On the other hand she was a normal proud mother, someone who couldn't quite let go of her role in her boys lives and didn't want to be sidelined.
Amy Adams was nominated but did not win for her role as Micky's girlfriend, one of many catalysts in his life for taking steps to ensure he would be a real boxer and not just someone to be used to move other fighters up the tables. Adams' performance was great but out of her and Leo it was definitely Leo's to lose. Amy Adams always seemed to get the chirpy girl roles, even in the indie movies (Junebug, love that film) but here she is utterly believable as the waitress who wants her boyfriend to succeed even if it means taking a chunk out of one of his sisters.
The rest of the supporting cast are also fantastic, its as though the film really was a documentary of the lives of this huge family and their friends. Everyone in it is worth watching. Which is why I found it sad that Wahlberg didn't get at least a nomination for his performance.
Personally to me Jesse Eisenberg was playing an exaggerated version of himself in The Social Network so why did he get the nod where Wahlberg was snubbed? I don't know, its all personal taste I guess. All I know is that I'm not going to watch The Social Network again but I'll probably watch The Fighter.
At the end of the day, David O'Russell is a genius. He got me to enjoy a film about boxing which has happened only once before with Somebody Up There Likes Me - and that was because I am more than a little in love with the late great Paul Newman. He once more pushed Christian Bale's boundaries with health and fitness, and brought Melissa Leo to the forefront of great movie making.
This was just an utterly brilliant film, I definitely recommend it even if you think boxing is the last thing you want to watch. But this isn't a film about boxing really, it is about family, and David O'Russell has a gift when it comes to family.
Wednesday, 30 January 2013
Sunday, 6 January 2013
Bel Ami ☆☆½
So I wanted to review this film because it has been getting a bit of lambasting by the critics and fellow Lovefilm subscribers, some of which is deserved but I feel like I need to stick up for it a bit.
Yes I said stick up for it even though I feel it is still half a star from being 'worth watching' in my rating system. Basically there are some fundamentals that are wrong with this film, namely the script and editing, but there are also positives.
So, like an evaluation of an employee we shall begin with a positive, move on to the negative, and round off with another positive.
Robert Pattinson's performance in this is really very good. The trouble is his smile is so genuine that it breaks out all over his face - not many actors can smile quite that wide, in fact I can only think of people such as Michael Palin whose smile lights up his face, but then that isn't in an acting capacity. So because I have seen him smile so genuinely in interviews and such, when I see him smile in this I am removed from the film and do not see Georges but Robert smiling on screen. Destroys the illusion somewhat.
Apart from the smile though, he does very well as the foolish young man determined to make money through screwing important women.
And this is where I begin with the negatives. The character of Georges was abhorrent. Truly, there was only a couple of times that I felt sorry for him but the rest? No, young man got much more than he deserved and if only he'd been grateful I might have connected with the character.
As for the women: Uma Thurman was fine but for the script and direction she was given; Kristen Scott Thomas is SO MUCH BETTER than the character she was lumped with who was stupid and obsessive; and Christina Ricci had a character that didn't make many good decisions but was by far the best of the three.
It did not surprise me to learn that the directors (two of them, generally bad news and probably why it wasn't quite so cohesive as it could have been) had only one or two previous film making credits which accounts for the uncertainty in places of where the story is going and how it is being framed. At first I thought it was going to be the memories of Pattinson as he contemplates how he came to be so miserable, and then it stopped referencing those dark moments and lost that thread completely.
I'm sure the book was salacious and riveting, indeed the French version of the film has almost two stars more than this one so perhaps something gets lost in translation. However the screen writer has been responsible for two episodes of Lark Rise to Candleford (a deathly boring series that started so well but then KEPT GOING) and her next credit is for the Inspector Morse spin off Lewis...hardly naked bodies in the bedroom fare which may be why Bel Ami wasn't quite so French as it should have been.
But to end on a positive then I would have easily turned this film off had it not been for the exchanges between Ricci and Pattinson. They had more chemistry than the other pairings and were much more enjoyable to watch. I really like Ricci, she and Elijah Wood have this youthful quality to both their appearance and acting but can still command the screen with emotion. I loved the game of tag that Pattinson plays with Ricci and her daughter because it felt like a genuine moment.
So yeah, it needed a LOT of work to make it worth a watch but, because I like Ricci and am always willing to let Pattinson show off better acting than frowning constantly with heavy white make-up, I don't regret my decision to watch Bel Ami. I just wish it had been better.
Yes I said stick up for it even though I feel it is still half a star from being 'worth watching' in my rating system. Basically there are some fundamentals that are wrong with this film, namely the script and editing, but there are also positives.
So, like an evaluation of an employee we shall begin with a positive, move on to the negative, and round off with another positive.
Robert Pattinson's performance in this is really very good. The trouble is his smile is so genuine that it breaks out all over his face - not many actors can smile quite that wide, in fact I can only think of people such as Michael Palin whose smile lights up his face, but then that isn't in an acting capacity. So because I have seen him smile so genuinely in interviews and such, when I see him smile in this I am removed from the film and do not see Georges but Robert smiling on screen. Destroys the illusion somewhat.
Apart from the smile though, he does very well as the foolish young man determined to make money through screwing important women.
And this is where I begin with the negatives. The character of Georges was abhorrent. Truly, there was only a couple of times that I felt sorry for him but the rest? No, young man got much more than he deserved and if only he'd been grateful I might have connected with the character.
As for the women: Uma Thurman was fine but for the script and direction she was given; Kristen Scott Thomas is SO MUCH BETTER than the character she was lumped with who was stupid and obsessive; and Christina Ricci had a character that didn't make many good decisions but was by far the best of the three.
It did not surprise me to learn that the directors (two of them, generally bad news and probably why it wasn't quite so cohesive as it could have been) had only one or two previous film making credits which accounts for the uncertainty in places of where the story is going and how it is being framed. At first I thought it was going to be the memories of Pattinson as he contemplates how he came to be so miserable, and then it stopped referencing those dark moments and lost that thread completely.
I'm sure the book was salacious and riveting, indeed the French version of the film has almost two stars more than this one so perhaps something gets lost in translation. However the screen writer has been responsible for two episodes of Lark Rise to Candleford (a deathly boring series that started so well but then KEPT GOING) and her next credit is for the Inspector Morse spin off Lewis...hardly naked bodies in the bedroom fare which may be why Bel Ami wasn't quite so French as it should have been.
But to end on a positive then I would have easily turned this film off had it not been for the exchanges between Ricci and Pattinson. They had more chemistry than the other pairings and were much more enjoyable to watch. I really like Ricci, she and Elijah Wood have this youthful quality to both their appearance and acting but can still command the screen with emotion. I loved the game of tag that Pattinson plays with Ricci and her daughter because it felt like a genuine moment.
So yeah, it needed a LOT of work to make it worth a watch but, because I like Ricci and am always willing to let Pattinson show off better acting than frowning constantly with heavy white make-up, I don't regret my decision to watch Bel Ami. I just wish it had been better.
Wednesday, 26 December 2012
Brave ☆☆☆☆½
I was going to see this film at the cinema but it was on during the summer (children) and it is that bit more obvious you are going to the movies on your own if during a holiday period. Not that I care about seeing films alone, its just embarrassing when you used to work at the cinema in question and some persons in there still run away from you because a) they are incredibly sad people and b) you were a bit of a cow to them....but thats another story no one needs to know.
Also with regards to Brave a few people had told me it was incredibly disappointing and about the only interesting thing was the hair...ok so props to the animators the hair is EXTRAORDINARY (Merida's red locks look almost exactly like my own curly frizzy mess of a hairdo, except not blond). However the hair is absolutely not a scene stealer in my own, humble opinion.
Merida, then, is a princess in a Scottish tribe whose father and mother have arranged for suitors to come from the three other tribes in the Kingdom to become her husband...Merida is not so happy about this. She is an independent, strong willed, warrior child who is as good at archery as a certain Katniss Everdeen.
Merida has three younger brothers (triplets) who are the usual trouble makers but adorable with it, and also sport some rather spectacular curly red hair.
And this was all I knew plot-wise before seeing the film so that is all I'm going to tell you, I think the not-knowing where the film is going is actually something refreshing for movie-goers - all too often the trailer tells you everything and spoils it.
So then, why did I enjoy the film so much even though my friends did not?
Firstly the animation is beautiful: the scenery of the highlands, the tribesmen and women in their celtic garb, and the way they can animate hair and fur so it moves in the wind still makes me smile from ear to ear.
Second the stereotypes. Weird that I am classing this as a positive but, as person of Scots heritage (as in I have living relatives who are Scottish including my mother) I can confirm that, in my family at the very least, we conform to the stereotypes in this film. We are loud, enjoy a drink or five, are incredibly thrifty (we're not cheap we're careful) and are reasonably happy to have an argument. I thought the way these stereotypes were portrayed reflected well the Celtic orgins of the Scottish people, living in hard lands and having to fight for survival...but also poking fun at the same time in a good-hearted way. You cannot be offended by the portrayal of Scottish people in this film and if you are, well then I sincerely hope you get a life sometime soon.
However what I really loved in this film was the family dynamic it portrayed. Merida is a strong willed daughter fighting against a mother who wants her to be perfect princess. Her father is indulgent and encourages her humour and her fighting, and her brothers are adorable scamps who cause chaos wherever they go.
Disney isn't famous for its mother-daughter exploration, especially not in princess movies:
Brave is the first Disney princess movie to focus on the bond between mother and daughter (yes Tiana is raised by her mother but it is her father who inspires her). Merida and her mother are allowed to have a confrontational and true to life teenage daughter and parent relationship. They fight, they misunderstand each other, and then, with a little help, come around to what each other was really trying to say in the first place.
This isn't UP or Wall-E, you won't find the horse is able to communicate in ways other than the usual horsey methods of stamping feet or whinneying, and you won't be rolling off your seat laughing.
What you will get from this film is a beautiful portrayal of life for a teenage girl set against the stunning highlands, expected to marry and to be a lady when all she wants is to shoot arrows and be a girl for a bit longer.
I would say for those who haven't seen the film is to set expectations low (often films are ruined by our own preconceptions), don't anticipate a comedy when really it is a drama, and do not take offense at the stereotypes on behalf of anyone you know who is a Scot - they need a thump if they find it offensive. And lastly enjoy the accents - there is something special about the Celtic lilt.
I really did enjoy Brave, and I hope you do too.
Also, keeping with Pixar tradition, John Ratzenberger gets a voice part too :)
Also with regards to Brave a few people had told me it was incredibly disappointing and about the only interesting thing was the hair...ok so props to the animators the hair is EXTRAORDINARY (Merida's red locks look almost exactly like my own curly frizzy mess of a hairdo, except not blond). However the hair is absolutely not a scene stealer in my own, humble opinion.
Merida, then, is a princess in a Scottish tribe whose father and mother have arranged for suitors to come from the three other tribes in the Kingdom to become her husband...Merida is not so happy about this. She is an independent, strong willed, warrior child who is as good at archery as a certain Katniss Everdeen.
Merida has three younger brothers (triplets) who are the usual trouble makers but adorable with it, and also sport some rather spectacular curly red hair.
And this was all I knew plot-wise before seeing the film so that is all I'm going to tell you, I think the not-knowing where the film is going is actually something refreshing for movie-goers - all too often the trailer tells you everything and spoils it.
So then, why did I enjoy the film so much even though my friends did not?
Firstly the animation is beautiful: the scenery of the highlands, the tribesmen and women in their celtic garb, and the way they can animate hair and fur so it moves in the wind still makes me smile from ear to ear.
Second the stereotypes. Weird that I am classing this as a positive but, as person of Scots heritage (as in I have living relatives who are Scottish including my mother) I can confirm that, in my family at the very least, we conform to the stereotypes in this film. We are loud, enjoy a drink or five, are incredibly thrifty (we're not cheap we're careful) and are reasonably happy to have an argument. I thought the way these stereotypes were portrayed reflected well the Celtic orgins of the Scottish people, living in hard lands and having to fight for survival...but also poking fun at the same time in a good-hearted way. You cannot be offended by the portrayal of Scottish people in this film and if you are, well then I sincerely hope you get a life sometime soon.
However what I really loved in this film was the family dynamic it portrayed. Merida is a strong willed daughter fighting against a mother who wants her to be perfect princess. Her father is indulgent and encourages her humour and her fighting, and her brothers are adorable scamps who cause chaos wherever they go.
Disney isn't famous for its mother-daughter exploration, especially not in princess movies:
- The Little Mermaid (Ariel): single father strong willed daughter
- Beauty and the Beast (Belle): single father strong willed daughter
- Aladdin (Jasmine): single father strong willed daughter (I sense a theme)
- Sleeping Beauty (Aurora): parents alive but taken away and raised by fairies until 16
- Snow White: single father evil stepmother
- Cinderella: single father evil stepmother
- Tangled (Rapunzel): parents alive but stolen and raised by evil woman until 18
- The Princess and the Frog (Tiana): single mother
Brave is the first Disney princess movie to focus on the bond between mother and daughter (yes Tiana is raised by her mother but it is her father who inspires her). Merida and her mother are allowed to have a confrontational and true to life teenage daughter and parent relationship. They fight, they misunderstand each other, and then, with a little help, come around to what each other was really trying to say in the first place.
This isn't UP or Wall-E, you won't find the horse is able to communicate in ways other than the usual horsey methods of stamping feet or whinneying, and you won't be rolling off your seat laughing.
What you will get from this film is a beautiful portrayal of life for a teenage girl set against the stunning highlands, expected to marry and to be a lady when all she wants is to shoot arrows and be a girl for a bit longer.
I would say for those who haven't seen the film is to set expectations low (often films are ruined by our own preconceptions), don't anticipate a comedy when really it is a drama, and do not take offense at the stereotypes on behalf of anyone you know who is a Scot - they need a thump if they find it offensive. And lastly enjoy the accents - there is something special about the Celtic lilt.
I really did enjoy Brave, and I hope you do too.
Also, keeping with Pixar tradition, John Ratzenberger gets a voice part too :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)