Review: Narcos

Zach and I have been incredibly pleased with the Netflix original programming, and have become outright hooked on several of the titles.  With him being gone for so long last year, I was (incredibly!!) patient and waited for him to get back before catching up on OITNB, Narcos, Longmire, Marco Polo... Like I said, we've been pleased with their original programs :)

 

Which means, now that he's back in the states, that we are catching up.  I know Narcos season 3 is already due out sometime this fall, but here you go: my thoughts on the show thus far.

 

 

 

Plot:  The series so far has followed the rise (and eventual downfall) of cocaine king Pablo Escobar and his cartel, and the efforts of the Colombian police and US DEA agents assigned to bring him down.

 

This has been a very well-done series. 

 

The acting was solid.  No big names, though a few familiar faces, and they all did a good job bringing the characters to the screen.  The standout definitely was Wagner Moura as Escobar.  Unfortunately, he won't be back next season, at least in anything other than a flashback (season 2 ending with Escobar's death, and all), but he was definitely worth watching.  And a bit of trivia?  Moura is Brazilian, so his native language is Portuguese, not Spanish.  He actually learned Spanish for this role!

The story is very well paced.  The plot is really what pulls you in, more than particular characters, and the writers paced things very well to keep the action and the tension going pretty consistently.  Definitely got us hooked.  If you're expecting a generic crime drama, prepare to be pleasantly surprised.

 

Historical accuracy?  Well, as the disclaimer at the start of each episode says, some events, characters, etc. have been dramatized for the purposes of television (or whatever the actual legal wording says).  Obviously, some things have to have been based on imagination, because these are conversations where all participants have since died - Escobar talking to his sicarios, for example.  Some minor characters were based on real people, who may or may not have experienced the same fate as their fictional versions.  And some things were streamlined time-wise to fit the pacing of the show, or were sensationalized a bit for TV - all those little changes to turn Real Life into a Show, you know?  I read an article interviewing the two agents featured in the show, and what they thought about the accuracy.  Pena laughed that his love life wasn't nearly as exciting as it was in the series.  That sort of thing - dramatization.

Part of the dramatization, too, is the good-guy-bad-guy dynamic.  Escobar was a truly violent drug czar, but at the same time, was beloved by a lot of people and considered a Robin Hood-type, supporting communities that the government was practically ignoring at the time.  And let's face it, the US was not squeaky-clean, white-horse, white-hat in their actions, either.  In order to bring down the Medellin cartel, drug enforcement agencies were willing to tread in some rather murky waters.  Though it does get more into the grittiness of reality in the second season, the show did, in some ways, have to simplify these issues.  Part of it was the need to water it down for TV audiences, and part is probably just the challenge of trying to capture how complicated reality actually was.

 

And yet, there are a lot of things that they tried to get right.  The make-up and costuming staff did a great job getting many of the actors to look very much like their real-life counterparts.  There are even articles you can find online comparing pictures of the actors and real photos of their characters.  And the two DEA agents, Murphy and Pena, acted as consultants for the series, so there's input from people who were actually there which (for better or worse) does make a difference. 

 

One of the (very) effective techniques they used to emphasize the realism of the series was including real photos and footage from the time.  There were times where it was almost seamless, the blending of old footage and show footage.  They were getting very good at this through the second half of Season 2, as the drug wars were heating up.  Using news coverage of the bombings and murders really drove home the images.  Very well done.

 

Aside from accuracy, the mark of a good historical piece (to me, at least) is that it makes me want to read more about the real events.  Same way that a good movie from a book should make me want to read the book.  And I've definitely been reading on Escobar as we've been watching this - just like I've been reading on Marco Polo and Ghengis Khan, and on Thomas Cromwell (Wolf Hall).  Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, but just doesn't film as well, you know?  There are some incredible stories out there, and as I'm a curious little mind and into everything, I like when a series does a good job of planting the seeds.

 

Biggest complaint so far?  The sound.  There was something up with the sound of the second season, where the Spanish dialogue seemed much softer than the English.  Don't know if it was something in the show itself, or in the Netflix streaming, or in our devices, but it was a little frustrating.  A shame too.  Even though we don't speak Spanish, it's still fulfilling to hear the dialogue, the sounds and tones and inflections of it.  The acting is well done, and it's a waste to not be able to hear it.  Hearing the emotion, even if we can't understand the words, is part of the experience, after all.

 

SPOILER (though not really, if you know anything about the history told here, or can look up Escobar in Google):
Escobar does die at the end of S2.  This was an incredible episode, very effective - a good emotional gut-wrench.  The inter-splicing of actual news footage and photos was very well done.  Zach and I both had just a stunned moment as the episode ended, one of those "wow" type feelings.  Like I said, very, very well done.

And the questions circulating now, looking at different websites, are where will they take us for S3 and 4 (both of which have been signed for on Netflix)?  The way things look, the Cali cartel will be the next focus, but we shall see in the fall what else they bring to the table!

 

Overall:  4.5 of 5.  Not a warm and fuzzy show (drug wars, after all), but good cast, well written, and well produced.  The story drives it more than anything else, but you still enjoy watching the characters and their interactions.  A few things that could be improved, but still definitely worth watching.  Consider it another win for Netflix original programming.

 

And because I like character-based poster series, here you go :)

 

        

 

Season 1 (above) had pictures of everyone with cocaine and powder sprays/splashes (is it a splash, if it's powder?).  Season 2 (below) had pictures with bullets.  Pretty appropriate really - Season 1 was the building of the Medellin empire, and Season 2 was the war that resulted.

 

       

All the way through season 8!!

Netflix has all 8 seasons of Dexter streaming!!  Here's my own little chatter (and marketing plug to watch this show!).

Plot:  In case you haven't heard of or seen the show, here you go.  Dexter Morgan is a blood spatter analyst working at Miami Metro Homicide.  He's also a serial killer on the side.  Watch Dexter through 8 seasons as he eludes the police, the FBI, and other serial killers, while balancing dating, being a father, and hunting for his next victim. The series is inspired by the books by Jeff Lindsay, of which I've only been able to read the first so far.

The acting is great!  Michael C. Hall just makes the show.  Dexter's monologues and inner comments are  priceless.  How many characters can remind themselves "I will not kill my sister.  I will not kill my sister" and you know they really mean it??  Jennifer Carpenter's great as Deb, his sister.  And the supporting cast is very very solid.  Lots of likeable (and unlikeable) characters very well played.  And one of the fun things about the show is that in addition to the regular cast, they bring in a guest star or two for the season.  I still think my favorite was John Lithgow in Season 4.  It'd been so long since I'd seen him in a bad guy role, I'd almost forgotten how creepy he can be!

The timing and pacing of the show are beautiful.  It's a Showtime series, so only 12 episodes in a season compared to network TV.  Which means that it doesn't have lots of fluff built into season.  Some story arcs might have more padding than others, but overall, it's a nicely paced story.

And watching the characters develop is so much fun.  Dexter's an antihero, a serial killer who you still don't really want to see caught.  And he repeatedly refers to himself as a monster, something not really human.  So in each season, you see him working towards being more human - dating, finding a true friend, falling in love, becoming a parent.  Despite not feeling human, Dexter grows in some very human ways, and that makes for a highly enjoyable story.  His narration is relatable, as well as being entertaining.

On to the negatives...

After season 5, you can kinda see the production and/or writing crew changed.  The dialogue didn't change or characters didn't start acting out-of-character or anything like that.  It was more in the storylines and character development.  Like, the first 5 seasons really were driven more by character development - not that there weren't major plot lines, because there were.  But the character development was a more major push than it felt like it was in seasons 6-8.  In the later seasons, the character development seemed more reactive, more a back seat to the events surrounding Dexter et. al.  In all honesty, you could probably watch the first 5 seasons and stop there and not feel like you're missing out much.  Seasons 6-8 happen, and lots happens to the characters, but I dunno, it just felt like a shift after season 5.  Kinda hard to explain, but just watch it and you'll understand.

On that same thought, but without any spoilers... the series finale.  The general consensus is that the finale was pretty bad.  Some lists put it as one of the worst series finales ever.  I'd definitely agree.  Without giving away too much, it felt like the writers just didn't know what to do with the characters to end the show.  Everything feels forced and over the top.  That was a regular feeling of mine in season 8, honestly, but it's really overwhelming in the last episode or two.  Like every formulaic Big Event got squeezed in.  Really, a very very disappointing ending to an otherwise well-done and enjoyable show.

KINDA SORTA SPOILER - I'm not putting it lower on the page, since it's not REALLY a spoiler, but it does cover some later plot points, so maybe you might think it is.  At any rate, I never really liked Hannah (seasons 7-8).  I'd buy that she's 'not the same kind of killer as Dexter,' i.e. that she's not a psychopath, but I don't buy that she only 'did what she had to, in order to protect herself.'  Yes, she was possibly dragged along on the spree when she was a teenager, overwhelmed by the older personality, but she's got several deaths on her own hands, too.  One is an older woman, her mentor of sorts, who left Hannah a flower shop and inheritance in her will.  Oh, and then conveniently passes away.  If it wasn't for that one death, I'd buy that Hannah wasn't really a heartless killer, but that one death was driven by greed, not necessity.  And that keeps me from really warming to Hannah.  Just can't.

Finally, I have to laugh at ourselves, too.  Even after all this chatter about how addicted to the show we are and how excited we have been for each season, Zach and I had a serious conversation about it when season 6 was about to begin.  We actually make the conscious decision to wait until the end of the season until it's all over to watch.  The way we burned through seasons 1-5 (seriously, in about 2 weeks), I think waiting from week to week over a full season would drive us bonkers!  So, we decided to wait until the season's all over (and the case of season 8, the show's finale too!!), then watch it all in a weekend or so, like we did with the earlier seasons. :)  The fact all 8 seasons are now available online via Netflix was just icing on the cake.  We started over back at season 1 just before Christmas.  I hadn't seen all of season 1 (he'd started watching the show and I got sucked in about episode 5) so we started at the beginning, thinking we'd watch season 1 and then go to season 8.  Until about season 1, episode 4, when we looked at each other and said "Yeah, let's just go straight through!"  So, with a break for our travels over New Year's, we worked our way right through :)

Overall: 4.5 of 5.  There are moments in any season, obviously, which are a little stretched or over the top, but overall, it's one we have watched (and will again, probably) more than once.  Dry, dark humor, good character development, great acting, surprise twists.  Like I said above, goes downhill after season 5, but still definitely a win.

Review: Brick

This one was one of our "let's see what's new on Netflix Instant Watch" finds.  An indie movie I hadn't heard of before: Brick.

Plot:  A high school loner is contacted by his estranged ex-girlfriend, who's scared of something she won't explain to him.  When she turns up dead, he begins to investigate on his own, making his way into a web of drugs and murder.

So, it's film noir, but set in a modern-day SoCal high school.  And I mean true film noir:  the disillusioned, loner hero; the female lead who might be a damsel in distress or might be a femme fatale; the camera angles and play with shadows; the soundtrack, either very oppressively quiet or strident and jarring music (no Third Man zither, though); even Dashiell Hammett-esque speech patterns. 

However, it's still set in a modern high school.  So, jocks, drama kids, stoners, outcast nerds.  But all talking as if they're in The Maltese Falcon.  So get used to conversation that seems a little incongruous with the mouth it's coming from.  Seriously, Brendan (the lead) called Laura (the Girl) "Angel" in their last conversation, just like the final conversation in The Maltese Falcon.  I don't think I've EVER heard someone my age use that nickname in that manner.

The acting's very solid.  I like Joseph Gordon-Levitt in general, and this one proved to be another strong performance from him.  He plays the film noir hero very well, which can be a tricky balance - withdrawn and disillusioned, but not jaded or mean or unlikeable.  And for a movie in color, they did a very good job using the shadows the way a typical noir does (something a little easier in black and white, so definitely noticeable if they do it well in color).

Aside from the mind bend of the movie's premise (which was both a plus and a minus), my biggest frustration with the movie was the sound.  It was either very quiet or very loud, which worked with the story's events, but at the same time, it made it difficult at times.  And with the stylized speech patterns, the uneven soundtrack volume, and a tendency for hushed conversations, the dialogue was often challenging to follow.  There were a couple times where one of us had to look at the other and ask, "What did he just say?"  The mystery is supposed to be in events, not because you couldn't hear or follow the characters' conversations.

I honestly have no idea if I liked it or not.  Yeah, I know, watch a two hour movie and still can't tell if you like it.  There were points where I could pull back and appreciate the film noir tropes being used and reinterpreted in the modern story, and then there were times where it jarred and felt too surreal.  The acting and directing were all well done, but the story, the premise itself was what made it so unusual.  It's not an escapism movie, or a "make you think," Deep Subject sort of movie.  This was an "artistic" movie, if you know what I mean.

Overall:  No clue.  Not one for my shelf, but an interesting watch, especially if you like mysteries, indie films, or movies that are a little on the unusual side. 

And because I like series of character-based movie posters, these were the ones from Brick.  

 

Review: the Thin Red Line

Yup, some more movie chatter!  Most of my viewing time recently has been TV shows, several of which might make there way here eventually, but yes, we do still watch movies from time to time :) This was one that had ended up on my queue after reading one of the Top 100-type lists.  I can't remember if it was in an article or one of the AFI lists, or what, but it was ranked as one of those 'movies you should see.'  So I did!  Here you go, my thoughts on The Thin Red Line.

Plot:  The movie follows an Army company during the Battle of Guadalcanal, from the landing on the beach through much of the fighting.  An ensemble piece with a very strong cast, the film examines the soldiers' thoughts and reactions to the bloodiness and chaos of the war they have been drawn into.

There are two areas of comments that I have for this movie - artistic merits and entertainment value.  It really is one of 'those movies' when it comes to art v. entertainment.  And the movie will appeal to some and not to others for exactly this reason.  If you're looking for a daring-do sort of adventure movie or a more 'traditional' sort of war movie, this is not the film for you.  Even other modern war movies, like "Saving Private Ryan" for example, while less traditional, are much more plot driven than this one.  "The Thin Red Line" explores greater themes using the war as a setting, rather than the story itself.  It really doesn't matter what battle, or even what war, this company is involved in.  Amidst the chaos of battle, the characters examine themes like courage, death, and the existence of God, among others.  I'm sure they could have set a similar story in WWI, Vietnam, modern day fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The point is more the human reaction to war, not the battle itself.  Very much a 'thinking' war movie.

And this cerebral aspect makes it an interesting movie, one to watch at least once.  It's a very Artistic take on a war movie.  I considered it a 'surreal vision of the idea that War Is Hell.'   The way they play with sound for example - some of the most chaotic, bloodiest, violent scenes of battle are almost soundless, simply a character's voice-over or an light instrumental piece.  Where another movie would be at one of it's loudest points, this one is at one of it's softest.  It give the fighting a very detached feel, like you have been inescapably sucked into the storm, but that you are watching from outside as it swirls around you.  The pacing too - things that might have been the focus of another movie (action scenes, battle, etc) are more quickly paced and more time is spent on the build-up to battle and on the aftermath.

Thinking of pacing, this is veeeeeery slowly paced (it is 3 hours, after all).  It honestly took me a good third of the movie to get into the story and to distinguish and care about any of the characters.  This is where the 'entertainment value' critique comes in.  I will care much more about the philosophic pondering of someone if I can distinguish them from each other.  Characters also appear and disappear from the story with little announcement or explanation.  Yes, I realize that's how battle goes, but it does make it harder to follow which soldier is following which train of thought.  And thinking of details almost omitted, I had to look up the plot description first to even know what battle they were preparing to fight.  It was very vaguely discussed at first, more talk of "taking the airstrip" or "taking the island" rather than Guadalcanal as a specific name.  I guess this was done intentionally, to keep the movie as more of a commentary on war itself, as opposed to this specific battle.  For an entertaining movie, one typically turns to plot-driven films.  This is much more slowly paced, taking the viewer through the characters thoughts as they face battle and survive it.  Quite honestly, philosophic epics aren't usually what one chooses for light afternoon fare.  Still, if you're looking for something deeper, this is a well-done film.

Finally, the cast.  This is another area in which the film excels.  It's an ensemble piece, and just about everyone who has a speaking line is Somebody, or became Somebody.  The leads, if there are any, are played by Sean Penn and Jim Caviezel, as a jaded sergeant and a quiet, spiritual, almost ethereal private.  Caviezel does a lot of the narrating, and his soft, smooth voice suits well all the talk about finding courage and finding what lies after death.  Penn's gruff sergeant tries more to find the numbness that will let him survive this carnage after being in so many other battles.  Ben Chaplin plays another major role, as a soldier thinking of his wife at home (definitely a part where the movie drags, as he dreams of his wife).  Chaplin's longing and sadness give him probably the most emotional character.  It's a very strong cast, and seeing the reputation of the director, I'm sure people were falling over themselves to be a part!  

Overall: 3 of 5.  Liked it, very well done, but also very veeery long.  Hard to get into, and hard to feel for the characters for easily the first third of the movie.  Not one for the shelf, but I'm glad I've seen it now.

Review: Tangled

Another I missed in theaters (curse this isolated place!!) and just finally got to see: Tangled.

 

Plot:  A Disney-fied version of the Rapunzel story.  That's the short summary :)  Yes, the one all the buzz is about.  And rightly so.

Everyone keeps talking about this as a 'return' to the older style of Disney movies, and I can see what they mean.  The sidekick characters, the little running jokes, the music (yay for Alan Menken!), being more story and less adventure movie (though there is adventure too).  It's still got a modern touch (more little jokes than say, Snow White) but it's not Treasure Planet.  And for sidekick characters, I liked the chameleon - his little hands were adorable!  

I liked the voices in this one.  Mandy Moore has the pipes for the musical numbers, without sounding too 'pop-y,' if you know what I mean.  And even when she speaks, she sounds like a bubbly young personality, but not irritatingly so.  I loved her bipolar reaction sequence to escaping the tower - too funny!  The lead male is suitably fun and quippy, no Snow White's Prince here. (Favorite line:  "You broke my smolder!").  But the one I really liked was Donna Murphy, the villainess's voice, Mother Gothel.  I reeeeeally liked her song, "Mama Knows Best."  She's won two Tonys, and the experience certainly shows!  And as a side note, how many different Disney movies are there where the villain has the best song??  Just think about it! 

Visually, it's beautifully rich and detailed.  Like Sleeping Beauty, with the feel of old paintings or illuminated letters.  It's CGI, not old style animation, but they didn't let the computer overwhelm the picture, if you know what I mean.  Does that make sense?  Something about the texture, I think...

Overall:  5 of 5.  Beautiful animation, cute characters, good music. Kept me watching and I laughed out loud several times.  One I definitely want on my shelf.  And on repeated viewings, it might even rival Beauty and the Beast as my favorite Disney movie.  Yes, I liked it that much!

And just because I liked the character posters for this one :)

Review: Red Riding Hood (the movie)

Part of a movie-filled weekend a few weeks ago - our little theater had a weekend full of movies I wanted to see for once!  I spent a lot of time at the theater that weekend.  :)  I kicked it off with Red Riding Hood.

Plot:  The premise is a darker twist on the traditional Red Riding Hood story.  Teen-aged Valerie lives in a medieval town plagued by a werewolf (the Wolf).  She is caught in a love triangle, while the Wolf  meanwhile starts attacking people in the village again after decades of relatively peaceful coexistence.  A werewolf hunter, Father Solomon, arrives in the town and starts looking for the Wolf amongst the townsfolk.  Valerie is quickly recognized as special in the eyes of the Wolf.  She faces suspicion and accusations from her friends and family, while trying to find who the Wolf really is.  And yes, she wears a red cloak and has a grandmother who lives in the woods.

I did not like the girl who played Valerie.  She looked much as I had pictured her when I read the book, but had absolutely no emoting ability.  She has those big wide eyes, but most of the time just had a stare, mouth slightly agape.  I've seen bits of her work in other pieces, so I know Amanda Seyfried can do much better, but there was just nothing to her Valerie.  A few flashes of emotion, but nothing to make the character warm or believable.  And especially when compared to the book; there,Valerie is a clever, independent sort of person, wanting more than her little town presents her (think Belle in Disney's Beauty and the Beast) and honestly torn between her feelings for the two men interested in her.  Instead, she seems rather vacant here.

I didn't like the guy who played Peter either.  (I did like the use of Peter as a name in a story dealing with a wolf though).  His way-too-modern hairstyle bothered me, for starters.  Where does he get that much hair gel in a tiny village deep in the forested mountains anyway?  And the fact that he's supposed to be the dashing, handsome, passionate love that she's turning down her betrothed to run away with... Just look at the pictures at the bottom there.  Who would you choose?  I guess it's like every version of A Tale of Two Cities that I've ever seen - the devoted-yet-still-rejected guy always seems to be the more handsome one.  Honestly, Robert Pattison in the Twilight movies produces much the same reaction from me - "Really?? He's the handsome one sweeping her off her feet?"

Thinking of those two characters, there seemed to be little chemistry between the leads.  The love triangle was there more because everyone talked about it, rather than actually feeling it.  I guess it goes with the whole superficial feel of the movie.  There were definitely scenes which could have been much more moving - several deaths, the love triangle, etc - which never really stirred a beat.

The writing felt anachronistic.  Not that the characters were using slang, but the speech patterns of the characters especially felt decidedly modern.  Not "I am going marry your daughter" but "I'm gonna marry your daughter," less enunciated, more modern-teenager sounding.  I didn't like it.  Sometimes it was the writing itself, sometimes the delivery, but it felt jarring in several conversations.

The movie felt very rushed.  Even without having read the book, the beginning of the movie felt ridiculously hurried and choppy.  The pace settled down a little once Father Solomon arrived in the town, but  it still felt like things were empty and glossed over.  And after having read the book as well, I know they were leaving tons out that helped with the explanations and eliminated that rushed feeling.  And at the same time, wasting time with her far-away thoughts (the repeated image of Valerie and Peter walking on a snowy mountaintop with her in an impractical 20-foot long cloak was ridiculous) - scenes not really necessary, when they didn't spend time with scenes which would have helped the story more.  I'm all for eye-candy in a movie, but a good treatment of the story helps too.

Some thoughts on camera work - were they trying to avoid a higher MPAA rating by shooting all stabbings looking up the sword at the attacker?  It was already PG-13, so would showing the sword stabbings have been that much worse?  As it is, you don't actually see anything.  Not that I'm a violent little ghoul who wants to see stabbings, but it was very odd camera work and I didn't like it.

And a continuity error... Suzette's scars were not visible in her last scene in the movie, even though a point was made about how she would be disfigured by the injury.  Just something I noticed.

Now for some things I did like...

I did like the idea, the story itself.  I really like re-imagined fairy tales and classic stories.  The princess who's ordinary, or not set on being married off to the prince who slays the dragon.  Several of my favorite books are along these lines (The Enchanted Forest Chronicles by Patricia C. Wrede, The Ordinary Princess by M. M. Kaye, Bridget Jone's Diary by Helen Fielding...)  This was the first time I'd seen Red Riding Hood tackled in this light, and I did like the story.

I like Gary Oldman.  He played Father Solomon as a man driven to protect in what he feels is the right way, but becomes mislead by his mission.  He wasn't quite as evil as I felt he became in the book, but Oldman made it work.  And I liked Julie Christie too.  Both of these actors have enough experience to make the characters believable, even with weak writing.  A few acting bright spots in an otherwise unremarkable casting effort.

Overall: 2.5 of 5.  Not bad, but not good.  Not even so-bad-it's-good.  Felt more like a rushed made-for-TV adaptation of a book - average acting overall, and kinda a rushed, choppy feel to the flow of the story.  Read the book instead.

 

HERE BE SPOILERS

I did and didn't like the ending. The actual book is left open-ended, though if you want closure, it is available online (more on that in another post though).  Here, they did go for the closure route, following the plot of the bonus chapter.  That was OK (I actually preferred the openness of the book) but I did like the last scenes, noting the aftermath of Father Solomon's visit, and how everyone's life continued after the Wolf came and left.  I guess to say I like the aftermath scene, but not the resolution of the Wolf mystery?

Review: Easy A

I missed this one when it came to the theater on post, so was very excited about it reaching our little library.  Up this week:  Easy A.

Plot:  After a little white lie about losing her virginity gets out, a clean cut high school girl sees her life paralleling Hester Prynne's in The Scarlet Letter, which she is currently studying in school - until she decides to use the rumor mill to advance her social and financial standing (summary courtesy of IMDB).

The acting was good.  Thomas Haden Church and Lisa Kudrow are both solid in roles as faculty in Olive's school, both funny and sad as their stories developed.  Patricia Clarkson and Stanley Tucci were hysterical as Olive's parents - not too involved, or too stupid-and-insensitive as teen movie parents tend to be.  They are intelligent, quirky, and honestly concerned about their kids - you know, real people.  The adult characters in general were pretty well rounded for a movie of this sort.

The standout, though, was Emma Stone as Olive.  Because her narrative drives a lot of the movie, it was important to have a strong female lead, and Stone handles it well.  She also has a very expressive face, making her range of emotions pretty genuine, and entertaining to watch.  I loved watching her play with her singing birthday card; just seemed a very real thing to do.  I'm looking forward to seeing what else she chooses to act in in the future.

The writing was great.  An actual vocabulary was used (somewhat rare in a teen-based comedy, in my opinion).  Yes, there was some swearing in there too (it is PG-13, after all), but there was some intelligence as well.

Yes, it's probably technically a romantic comedy, as the couple does get together at the end, but that wasn't the focus so much as just Olive's adventures and misadventures. So, a mildly romantic comedy, instead of a Romantic Comedy, if that makes sense?  Which is good, as the male lead (don't want to say hero, as his role wasn't that big) was pretty generic.  Really just there to give some closure at the end of the movie, I think.  Still, a relatively minor character being pretty generic and dull isn't as big a downside to a movie when the lead is so entertaining.

Overall:  4 of 5.  Very clever comedy, with an interesting heroine.  And Emma Stone seems a good up-and-comer to watch.  Can definitely see this one on the shelf.

Review: Sweeney Todd

Back-to-back!  Another Tim Burton/Johnny Depp/Helena Bonham Carter piece:  Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

Plot:  Benjamin Barker was a barber in London who was falsely accused of a crime by a corrupt judge.  He has returned from his imprisonment to find his wife dead and his daughter adopted by the same judge.  He now goes by the name of Sweeney Todd, and returns to his previous trade, taking up residence over the pie shop on Mrs. Lovett.  Todd, aided by Mrs. Lovett, begins a murderous quest for vengeance, while Mrs. Lovett's pie business booms as a side effect...

Dark humor, definitely!!  It's a dark story - love, revenge, murder, cannibalistic meat pies - but it's treated with a lighter touch, so that the funny points come through and the macabre doesn't overwhelm.  I guess you could say, it's gory at a few points, but tastefully done.  It's not a suspense movie, designed to subtly frighten you, and it's not a horror movie bloodbath.  The blood is present, and necessary, but not the focus in most scenes - I guess that's the best way to describe it.

I like musicals, even dark ones.  And Sondheim does do great music and lyrics, even if they aren't always the cheeriest stories out there (West Side Story, anyone?).  But hey, I love Les Mis, and a lot of Andrew Lloyd Weber pieces too, so a musical doesn't need to be cheery for me.  Interesting side note - Sondheim and Weber share a birthday!  Anyways, I've been humming several of the songs this past week, since watching the film, so that's always a good sign.  Being a movie musical, it doesn't have the full catalog of songs ("The Ballad of Sweeney Todd" by the chorus is gone, for example, since they don't need the backstory sung when Burton can film it) and a few of the pieces have shorter arrangements, but still good.  Already knowing the story (we have a cast recording at home of the 1979 Broadway version with Angela Lansbury), "Not While I'm Around" was one of my favorites - not necessarily humm-able, but throat-catching.  I definitely enjoyed the character of Toby.

And just because Depp and Bonham Carter always work with Burton wasn't a guarantee that they'd have parts in this one - they both had quotes about having to audition for Sondheim before getting a role and how nerve-wracking it was!  They both do well with the songs, even in accent.  Not Tony award winning or operatic ranges, but still well done.  Side note - the accents are kept through the songs.  It makes the songs more genuine, not quite so surreal as musicals can be, but it does make the lyrics hard to follow sometimes.  Let's face it, Cockney isn't the most enunciated accent!

They may not have spectacular vocal ranges, but they portray the characters very well.  Sweeney Todd is a man falling apart, driven by his revenge.  And Depp plays this beautifully.  Like I said last week, he does crazy well.  Here, it's more a depressed, disintegrating sort of madness, not the manic sort that the Hatter was.  And Bonham Carter makes a lovely sort of strong fragileness, with a madness of her own.  The two of them really do carry the show!

Thinking of cast - uncredited cameo by Anthony Head (Buffy's Giles) as a citizen in the street talking to Todd.  Don't blink or you'll miss it :)

Oh, and stupid notes from the IMDB boards... several commented on Danny Elfman's absence from the Burton usuals on this piece.  Duh - it's a musical, the score is already written, and anything that needed adjusting to fit the movie can be done by Sondheim himself!  Silly question...

Overall: 4.5 of 5.  Dark, darkly funny, and several memorable numbers.  The actors did a great job bringing it to life.  Not an 'upper' of a movie though - be forewarned.  Revenge, madness, murder are more on the menu than cheery songs and happy endings.

 

Review: Alice In Wonderland (the newest one)

A new arrival at the library!  Didn't even have to wait for the Netflix queue to reach it :)  Today's movie chatter:  Alice in Wonderland (the Tim Burton one)

Plot:  Mostly based on the original Lewis Carrol stories.  Alice is now 19, though, and falls down the rabbit hole while running away from her own engagement party.  She has returned to Underland (the Wonderland of her childhood), now in the grip of the Red Queen's reign of terror. According to prophesy, Alice is destined to free Underland from the Red Queen's rule and restore the White Queen to her rightful throne. 

For cast, they certainly pulled in a good assortment.  Alice (Mia Wasikowska) showed a good range as she took responsibility for her choices, a good 'growing up' role.  Like in any version of the Wonderland stories, Alice gains strength in Wonderland to return to the challenges she's facing in her real life (in this version, an unwanted engagement and overbearing relatives), and Wasikowska portrays this change well.  I'm looking forward even more now to seeing the new Jane Eyre, as she plays Jane.  Helena Bonham Carter's always fun, particularly with such an eccentric character (though I don't understand why they had the subplot of her enormous head - was that in the original stories?  It's been so long since I read them...)  I liked Anne Hathaway as the White Queen, though her affected hand mannerisms did get a little annoying.  I loved Alan Rickman and Christopher Lee (the Caterpillar and the Jabberwocky, respectively).  So experienced, those voices can just ooze personality into just a few lines.  Speaking of personality, Stephen Fry was great as the Cheshire Cat.  Fry just has a great vocal range and is so much fun to listen to.  The scene stealer was Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter though.  It's the perfect type of outlandish character that Depp does well.  I liked how his voice swung back and forth through ranges and accents.  My favorite was the ominous voice reciting the Jabberwocky poem to Alice to tell her about the creature.  Truly a mad Hatter.

Speaking of frequent Tim Burton collaborators, the Danny Elfman soundtrack fit beautifully.  Part cheery and part dark, it suited Burton's Underland to a T.

This is certainly a more visual movie than an emotional one.  As much as I liked the cast,  it was still a rather superficial treatment of the story.  Fun, but not emotionally gripping.  The visuals, however, were given free reign.  The characters could just be walking through the scenes, no story involved, and it would still be fun to watch.  The Tim Burton dark, artistic touch works well with this world.  There are so many details and so much life in the world he's created - very fun to watch.  Some of the character designs are a little over the top (like Johnny Depp's make-up) but it's still a good visual feast.

That being said, it's has the Tim Burton movie darker touches as well.  You do see a little violence, and some of the macabre touches that mark his pictures (the moat at the Red Queen's palace, for example).  Not that it's a bad thing - Alice is more grown up now, and so is her Wonderland - just that it's not all cheer and sunshine in Burton's Wonderland.

Final thought on the visuals.  The CGI for the most part is very well done.  I loved the Cheshire Cat's smokiness as the appears and disappears - no simple fade in and out.  The world as a whole was beautifully set up with the CGI, and for the most part, it's all very seamless.  It's interesting to notice that the CGI is actually most obvious on the characters not touched by the animation - the White Queen, the Hatter, Alice, etc.  And like in several recent movies (The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example) it's also noticeable when they animate otherwise realistic animals - the horses, Bayard the hound, and Bayard's family were the examples in this film.  If you're going to animate them anyways, make them a little more stylized so that it's not quite as... noticeable isn't the right word, since if they're stylized you'll notice they're animated anyways... jarring, maybe?  You know what I'm trying to say?  Oh, and I do think the Hatter's dance at the end was simply added to play with the CGI  :)

Overall: 3 of 5.  I liked it and would watch it again, but I don't necessarily see it on my shelf.

And because I like poster series like this...

   

   

 

Review: Down with Love

A movie I'd seen enough bits and pieces of to want to add to the queue so as to see the whole thing.  From a few years ago:  Down with Love.

Plot (courtesy IMDB, as I didn't have a clue how to summarize it succinctly):  An homage to the early 1960s sex comedies that starred Rock Hudson and Doris Day. The story follows a best-selling female advice author who has all the answers until a sly journalist playboy starts asking the questions.

Like the summary says, it's an homage.  It pulled in all the standard tools of its inspirations: the split-screen phone calls, the absolutely ginormous NY apartments, the witty banter and one-liners.  Plus, there were the sidekick character romance, misunderstandings and secrets kept between the leads, and twist-within-a-twist plots that any romantic comedy must have.  It's a fluffy, fun movie, with a nice stylized slant to it.

For the leads, well... going in I had my prejudices.  I like Ewan McGregor and David Hyde Pierce (I have a thing for deadpan).  I don't like Renée Zellweger as much - she's kinda hit or miss with me.  I did like her as Bridget Jones, but some of her other romantic comedies get a little irritating.  It's that pucker-face thing she does.  So, there are my biases; now you know.  

And here's my opinion:  I liked Ewan McGregor in the lead, but at the same time, it's definitely not my favorite role of his.  Just didn't seem to play to his strengths somehow.... I dunno.  It's not that he did a bad job with it; it's just not my favorite character of his.  And yes, Renée Zellweger was there, with the scrunchy-face thing too, but not as irritating as I've found her in other movies, so she passed.  Doris Day she's not, but she played well off of McGregor.  And that's the key in a movie like this - the leads have to have enough chemistry to keep the banter going.

I liked the supporting cast a lot better than the leads here.  David Hyde Pierce is so much fun as always.  He had a quote on his IMDB profile about telling a joke in second grade "and realizing it was funnier if I didn't laugh. I've been deadpan ever since."  He's perfect here as McGregor's frazzled boss and friend, stealing just about every scene he's in.  His 'counterpart,' Sarah Paulson as Zellweger's chain-smoking editor, isn't quite  as strong a scene-stealer, but she's still a lot of fun.  And in a genius bit of casting, Tony Randall is the owner of the publishing house selling Zellweger's book.  A lovely cameo from the man who was in plenty of these movies himself (typically cast in the role David Hyde Pierce played here).

The real reason to watch is for the look.  The movie is just eye-candy in how they recreated and were inspired by 1962 NY-in-the-movies.  The fashions and the set designs are just Fun, for a simple yet appropriate description.  It's definitely a movie to watch and soak in all the little fun details in the designs.  The costumes, too, are beautiful vintage fashion-plates.  Zellweger's and Paulson's characters are often color-coordinated to enhance the effect.  No Oscar for costuming here, unfortunately,  though they did win a few costuming awards.  But then, this was released in a year of historical epics as well as LotR: Return of the King, so there was some stiff competition. 

Oh, and if you get a chance, watch the extras.  There's behind-the-scenes stuff with the costuming that's interesting, as well as an absolutely hysterical blooper reel.  Enjoy!

Overall:  3.5 of 5.  A fun romantic comedy, and the sets and costumes are a blast.  The innuendos get a little old after a while, but I liked the banter between the characters and the odd puns and one liners.  Probably not one for the shelf, unless I find it on super-sale.  A nice fluffy movie with some seriously gorgeous sets and costumes.

Review: Gnomeo and Juliet

A good friend, her two small daughters, and I all needed to get out of our respective houses yesterday and go do something.  As luck would have it, we had a children's flick showing at the post theater this week.  Success!  So, here you go: my thoughts on Gnomeo & Juliet.

Plot:  As you might have guessed from the title, this is based (loosely) on Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet.  You know the basics - feuding families; daughter of one house falls in love with the son of the other and vice versa; romance, drama and tragedy ensue.  The variation this time is that the story is told set in the world of lawn decorations.

It's a fun movie.  It's not a classic, but I was never bored during it, and I laughed out loud several times. Can't ask for more than that. :)

There are going to be those annoying Shakespeare purists who will consider this 'butchering the Bard' and all, but honestly, it's a story about garden gnomes; how accurate a telling did you expect?  It's aimed at kids, and judging by the audience when we went, the target is reached well.

There were definitely things that I thought were clever in the film.  Like most good kids' movies nowadays, the filmmakers include jokes for the parents, those extra layers of humor to the story.  With this one, there were tons of Shakespeare references and quotes woven in.  Addresses, signs ("R&G Moving"), little quotes slipped into the dialogue, license plates... I honestly came out of the movie wanting to watch it again to try and catch them all!

I liked some of the little details too.  The paint on the gnomes that looked less than perfect, some of the sound effects... I really liked the noises that the gnomes made - they sound ceramic!  When the characters touch or kiss, it sounds like ceramic pieces touching!  A nice little detail that pleased me :)

The voice acting (always a high priority for me) was... interesting.  James McAvoy and Emily Blunt are the leads, and gave good performances.  Nothing too remarkable about either voice to listen to (not like Michael Caine as Lord Redbrick, Juliet's father, or Patrick Stewart as the statue of William Shakespeare) but they give solid performances.  Most importantly, I wasn't irritated by either voice, nor did they seem out of place.  Yes, for those who know me, that is a reference to my rant about the casting in the English dub of Princess Mononoke... still don't like Claire Danes' voice in that.  Dolly Parton was interesting as a voice, as her country twang is un-sheddable, but thinking about it, it kinda works.  She was announcing the start of the lawnmower race between Tybalt and Gnomeo, and, let's face it, even in Stratford-upon-Avon, that's a pretty country activity.  Ozzy Osbourne was a little mumbly as Fawn, the deer in the red garden, but he's a little mumbly in real life too.  And since Fawn was kinda a spacey character anyway, I didn't mind.   The voice I liked was the growly Tybalt, which I should have recognized - Jason Stratham.  Guess I shouldn't be too hard on myself for not recognizing it though - he does so many action films, not really a genre of intense dialogue.  He does play a good British tough, though, doesn't he?  Guess I have to watch more of his movies so I can place the voice more solidly, but did I really need an excuse for that?  :)

I think my biggest complaint was the music.  The Elton John songs I honestly felt were out of place.  I realize that Shakespearean theater doesn't immediately scream "Elton John," but remember: garden gnomes.  It's not that having songs in the movie was out of place, just some of the choices were, I dunno, odd feeling in the movie.  I realize that Elton John has connections to the film (his husband's one of the producers), and he does have experience working with movies before, but for Elton John songs in a kid's movie, I'd say watch Lion King instead.

Oh, and as a final thought, the bunny statues in the Blue garden are absolutely adorable!

Overall: 3.5 of 5.  I liked it.  The music was odd to me, and did drop down my rating, but I had fun watching.  It's not a classic like the Toy Story series (for a comparable CGI inanimate-objects-come-to-life movie) but it's a good afternoon at the theater.  Would definitely watch it again - like I said, I still want to catch all the Shakespearean references hidden in it. :)

Review: The Fighter

We were going to see either True Grit or The Fighter tonight as Date Night, but since The Fighter won several Oscars last night, and tonight's the last night it's showing here on post while True Grit has another weekend or two, we opted for The Fighter.  True Grit will have to wait til next week's review :)

Plot:  Based on a real story.  Micky Ward and Dicky Eklund are a boxer and his trainer, half-brothers from Lowell, MA.  The story follows Ward's rise to a world title, amidst family drama and his brother's struggles with drug addiction.

I loved it.

If you think it's "just a boxing movie," you're missing out.  It's family drama, it's rising above circumstances, it's overcoming bad choices and moving on.  And yes, there is boxing too.  But the titular Fighter isn't just Micky; it can be applied to most of the characters in the movie.  To sound sappy, it's a movie about the 'keep on fighting' attitude, overcoming internal and external struggles. 

The acting is absolutely awesome.  I wanted to see it due to the cast - I really like Mark Wahlberg and  Christian Bale, and Amy Adams is solidly one of my favorite actresses my age-ish.  And that was before Oscar season.  As it turned out, 3 of the 4 leads earned Oscar nominations (Christian Bale as Dicky, Melissa Leo as their mother Alice, and Amy Adams as Micky's girlfriend Charlene - the women in the same category).  Bale and Leo both won, in case you hadn't heard.

I really can't say enough about the cast.  I like Mark Ruffalo and Geoffrey Rush (two of the other Supporting Actor nominees) but Christian Bale was outstanding.  His character went the gamut - crack addict, coming clean, rebuilding what he'd broken.  And in seeing the interviews with the actual brothers (they run during the credits), Bale nailed a lot of Dicky's mannerisms.  Another role Bale changed his weight for too.  I haven't read that he lost as much weight as for The Machinist, but he definitely lost some.  Beyond acting, on a purely physical note, he really pulled off the gaunt crack addict look - he just has the cheek bones for it.  He loses some weight and BAM! there they are.  Just makes his face look so much leaner.  And I really liked the interviews at the opening and ending of the movie.  Apparently those were improvised by the actors while in character.  Just hearing how Dicky's voice cracked at the end was so perfect.

Melissa Leo, too, as the mother was great.  I think my favorite scene with her was where she picked up Dicky from the crack house.  You can see her just crumbling, her chin and mouth just barely shaking as she's trying to keep from sobbing outright.

Another thing I really liked about the movie was the soundtrack.  Some of the songs were internal (I don't know if that's the right term - like when the stereo in the car or the room is playing them?) and some were overlaid.  It was a really good selection of songs, and a lot of them lyrically-appropriate, which is always fun.  'Course, I like Rolling Stones and Dropkick Murphys and Led Zepplin and the Chili Peppers, so it really was a soundtrack after my own tastes as well.


I know that I haven't seen The King's Speech yet, and as an admitted Firth fan (both Colin and Jonathan), I might be a little biased towards the movie, sight-unseen. But as good as The Fighter is, it's not quite Best Picture in my mind.  A nominee yes, but there were some things that were still kinda Sports Movie Cliches.  Just a few tiny things that I'd say would keep it from being Best Picture Winner worthy.  But that's just my opinion now.  I'll let you know again after I see The King's Speech.


And as a warning, there is a lot of foul language.  Lowell was a mill town suffering as the mills were closing at the time of this movie.  The characters are facing steep unemployment rates, and came from a lower-income side of the town.  Not a combination for highly educated, profanity-free dialogue.


Oh, and they really did shoot a documentary about Dicky's addiction.  HBO released a documentary in 1995 called High on Crack Street: Lost Lives in Lowell, which followed Eklund and two other crack addicts for 18 months. The documentary does end with Eklund receiving a 10-15 year prison sentence, like in the movie here.

Overall: 5 of 5. Christian Bale's performance alone would be worth seeing, but add Melissa Leo and the rest of the cast, and it's one not to miss.  And even better, it's an uplifting movie!  A hard road to get there, but a positive ending to cap it off.  Win all around!

Review: Goodfellas

For my Valentine's Day movie review, we have a syrupy-sweet romantic comedy.  Nope, not here.  How about a tragic romance?  No again.  Instead, I present you my thoughts on Goodfellas.

Plot:  Based on a true story, Goodfellas follows the rise and fall of Henry Hill, a small time gangster in 1960's and 70's New York, along with his friends Jimmy Conway and Tommy De Vito.  Jimmy and Tommy, more unstable and more ambitious than Henry, gradually climb the ladder from petty crime to bigger and more violent ventures.  After an extended jail sentence, Henry begins to sneak around the back of the local mob boss, Paulie Cicero, venturing into the drug trade and starting on the slippery slope to his downfall.  

I also liked the IMDB summary provided by Dustin B.  

The lowly, blue-collar side of New York's Italian mafia is explored in this crime biopic of wiseguy Henry Hill. As he makes his way from strapping young petty criminal, to big-time thief, to middle-aged cocaine addict and dealer, the film explores in detail the rules and traditions of organized crime. Watching the rise and fall of Hill and his two counterparts, the slick jack-of-all-trades criminal Jimmy Conway and the brutish, intimidating Tommy DeVito, this true story realistically explores the core, blue-collar part of the mob. 

A perfect date movie, right?  

I like crime movies, but this one was so-so for me.  I dunno, I liked it but I don't think it's one for the shelf.  It's definitely one to see, though.  There's just so many quotes that come from this movie!  Most notably the famous " I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh?" scene, which has been referenced by everything from Hannah Montana to MST3K.  But the narration and some of the camera work too have been referenced and imitated by movies to follow.  I guess that's really the biggest reason to see it, to see the starting point for so many movies to follow.

For the acting, overall it's very solid.  Robert DeNiro is a little heavy handed, but that's been known to happen.  I still think my favorite movie of his is The Godfather II, but his Jimmy is another memorable character.  Ray Liota's transformation from wide-eyed petty crook to paranoid drug addict is very well done.  Henry has an innocence and often tries to play mediator between regular people and his more violent acquaintances, but at the same time, fits the darker world there, like when he beats up Karen's neighbor.  Liotta does a very good job balancing the two.  And it is his narration which holds the movie together.  As a negative note, I do have to say, I don't like his laugh.  Nothing he can help, I know, but it just bugged me...  But it's Tony DeVito, Joe Pesci's character, he of the "Am I funny?" fame, who's really, really worth watching.  I really liked the scenes with Spider, especially the second one.  The way he doesn't react at first is colder, scarier, creepier than some of his other outbursts.

Like Scorsese's other crime movies, this isn't an 'upper' of a movie (think The Departed).  The mafia and violence isn't glamorized. It starts out that way, as Henry starts out as a teenager and twenty-something.  He has backstage passes to clubs, the airport is "just like Citibank," and anything they want, they take.  But as Henry ages and sees more of The Business, you get to see as well how dirty it all is, and how dirty he becomes.  Especially by the end, when he's paranoid and strung out... certainly not an image to aspire to.

Thinking about it, I think there needs to be at least one or two relatively sane characters in the dark movies I like.  Here, I just didn't like any of the characters enough to want to revisit them often.  Violent psychopaths, uncharismatic drug addicts, murderous thugs... just nothing drawing me back to this world again.  I think that's really why I don't see this one on my shelf anytime soon.

Overall:  3 of 5.  I liked it, and it's well done, but not one for my shelf.  I liked The Departed and the Godfather trilogy better for my serious gang movies :)  Still, it's very well done, well acted, and if nothing else, you need to watch it to see the original source of so many pop culture references.

Review: The Mouse that Roared

This one is a more obscure on that popped up on Netflix recommendations, one of those 'you like those, so why not this?'  So, here you go:  The Mouse that Roared.

Plot:  The Duchy of Grand Fenwick, the world's smallest country, is being run bankrupt when their sole export, Pinot Grand Fenwick (their local wine), is undercut on the US market by a CA knock-off.  Their solution to the problem?  Declare war on the US!  What will  happen to Grand Fenwick  when they declare war?  And what would happen should they win?

As you might imagine from the plot summary, it's a pretty silly movie.

Peter Sellars is hysterical.  Another movie where he's playing multiple roles - practice for Dr. Strangelove a few years later? :)  Tully Bascombe (Seller's 'main' character) could have been very slapstick, but he's played really very normally, which makes it even funnier when he wins the war ("The dear boy meant well")!

There are a few points where the movie drags a little, and the special effects and cinematography aren't much to write home about, but that's not really the point of the movie.  Overall, it's a mix of some subtle writing and some surreal moments (20 men in chain mail walking around NYC, anyone?).  In short, a good British comedy!

Like I've repeated, it's a very silly movie, but it's even funnier when, watching it 50 years later, you realize how much is still applicable! "There's nothing better for a country's economy than to lose a war with the United States."

Overall:  4 of 5.  Not as consistently funny as some classic comedies, but definitely more good moments than not, and several laugh out loud moments too. Definitely worth seeing at least once!

Movie Review: Bullitt

I know!  It's been ages since I've had a movie posted!  Well, during Christmas time, I watch a lot more of the holiday classics, so no new ones to post about :)  But, back to Netflix, though, and this time it's Bullitt.

Plot:  As summarized on IMDB, "an all guts, no glory San Francisco cop becomes determined to find the underworld kingpin that killed the witness in his protection." (Yes, it IS more than "the movie with that car chase"!)  In a little more detail, Frank Bullitt is a San Francisco police lieutenant who is assigned by an ambitious politician to guard an important witness testifying against an organized crime organization.  When the witness is killed and one of his men seriously wounded, Bullitt become determined to find some answers about the attack.

I actually didn't like it.  I just didn't care about any of the characters.  I realize that Bullitt is supposed to be a gritty, hardworking, bull-dogish sort of detective, but he is so tight lipped that I had a hard time relating to him or the case he was working on.  I realize that if you're trying to have a more cerebral hero, he's probably going to be a bit quieter, but when you can't care about your title character, that's not a good thing.

Not that McQueen did a bad job with it though.  I actually do like him in taciturn roles, like in The Great Escape.  He did a good job with facial expressions and quiet attitudes.  I think some of it was the writing that never really pulled me into the characters - he's just a little too quiet.  For example, the conversation Bullitt has with his girlfriend after she sees the dead body and him on his job... it just felt out of place, somehow.  I guess up til that point in the movie, the biggest talker in the movie was Chalmers, so having some deep discussion between Bullitt and his girlfriend just struck me funny.  I guess I never really felt the connection between the lovers either.  Both are good actors (and Jacqueline Bisset is still one of the most beautiful actresses ever) but I just never felt any chemistry.

Robert Vaugh, as the politician Chalmers, was classic, though.  Very irritating, very pushy, but not overstated in a "this guys is obviously crooked" stereotyped villain sort of way (you know, what you would get in a movie now).  He was just an ambitious, pushy politician used to getting his way running up against a case which was not going his way.

Thinking of characters though, be sure to see Robert Duvall in a relatively small role as a taxi driver!  Not his big screen debut (as that was obviously To Kill A Mockingbird) but still several years before M*A*S*H and The Godfather. 

There were a lot of technical things I really liked, too.  The editing was great - actually earned an Oscar for that work!  A lot of the camera work was really well done, a very pretty film to watch.  I really liked the end scene, too, as he washes his face after coming home.  The first time I really felt how tired and overworked and drained Bullitt was in this job.

The movie is very quiet.  There is little background music, no sweeping soundtrack.  I kinda liked it.  I don't like glaring soundtracks in my suspense films, I think.

The car chase was interesting.  It wasn't as loud as a car chase would be in a modern movie - the whole movie, like I mentioned, is actually was very quiet.  And the chase was nearly 10 minutes of bouncing and speeding through the streets of San Francisco, so a lot of technical camera and stunt work was involved (though it is a pretty classic example of a continuity error - how the hubcap goes flying off on one turn, then is still present around the next).  It was one of those moments where you see the original compared to modern movies, and you have to try and keep it in context - no CGI editing of the chase, but actually driven through the city.  Makes it seem that much more impressive.

I know I'm an action movie buff, but there are a lot of dramas and such that I like, and a lot of action movies I don't, so it's not because it was a "classic, cerebral, not flashy and loud" sort of action movie that I didn't like it.  I don't mind if a movie is quiet if it's well done - I love M for example (and heck, that's quiet and in German!). And there are plenty of anti-hero movies and down-trodden-cops-against-the-system movies on my shelf.  I love Dirty Harry, and Bullitt is one that's supposed to be in the same genre.  I think that it was simply the characters that I didn't like here.  Oh well...

Overall:  3 of 5.  Beautiful editing, some strong performances, and of course that car chase.  But, really didn't draw me in.  Neither the suspense of the case nor the characters ever really clicked with me.  One of those movie to watch to understand all the references in other movies, but not one for my shelf.

Review: Bridge on the River Kwai

A find from the post library. Was one of the classics on my to-see list, so worth the rent. Don't know why I hadn't seen it at some point before, but there you go. So many movies, so little time :) Here it is now, though: thoughts on The Bridge on the River Kwai.

Plot (adapted from the IMDB summary): The film centers on WWII British prisoners of war who are ordered to build a bridge to accommodate the Burma-Siam railway being built by Japan. Under the leadership of Colonel Nicholson, the prisoners are persuaded that the bridge should be constructed (as opposed to  spending their energy on delaying  the operations, sabotage, escape attempts, etc). The prisoners treat the bridge as a symbol of British discipline and spirit and ability to overcome adverse circumstances, but  Nicholson becomes more and more obsessed with completing the project, whatever the cost. Meanwhile, unbeknown to the prisoners, the Allies have sent a mission into the jungle to destroy the bridge...

This movie totally deserves it's reputation.  It won 7 Oscars in 1958, and was nominated for an 8th.

Alec Guinness is great in this movie, making a complex character seem very real.  Nicholson starts out very concerned for his men, enduring severe punishment for what he sees as a proper cause.  Through the course of the movie, though, he become blinded by the short-term goal of building the bridge, making his mark despite the cost to his men.  Guinness makes the character almost sympathetic, really - you can see why he's willing to collaborate with the enemy to give the men focus during their imprisonment, but then you see how it turns.  He has had a full military career without being outstanding; the bridge is his chance to make an impression, create his legacy, even though it means working injured men, collaborating with the enemy, etc.  His realization of what he has done at the end is all the more powerful, when you keep in mind how hard he has worked for his men previously.  One of those "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" moments.


Sessue Hayakawa, who portrayed Col. Saito, the director of the POW camp, was another Oscar nominee, for Best Actor in a Supporting Role.  I really liked the scene where he concedes to Nicholson about the officer's duties.  The public bravado and collapse in private were both so well done, one of those scenes that just sticks out in the mind.

I honestly didn't like William Holden's character, though.  Kinda interesting, as he was the top billing.   Biggest name, I suppose.  Not the first case, though, where I've liked the supporting characters better than the lead.  Shears (the Holden character) was just a little heavy handed in the flirting, sarcasm, cynicism, etc. and somehow just grated on me instead of earning my support.  Holden's Sgt Sefton in Stalag 17 was a much better cynical, anti-war service member.

The cinematography was very well done as well.  Very epic.  The same way you feel cold watching Dr. Zhivago, you feel hot and sticky watching all the jungle scenes.  And I liked the repeated vulture images - though a little heavy-handed (almost silly) early on, when Shears was first rescued by the villagers, I liked the pairing with the vultures later in the movie.  The pacing is on the slow side, but that's common with "epic" sort of movies.  It also helps you appreciate the strain on the men at the camp, and the gradual descent by Nicholson into obsession, so slow that you don't notice it at first.

The music was another strong point, and earned another Oscar for the film.  Of course, everyone remembers the Col. Bogey March from the film (the song the prisoners are whistling) but the music overall adds a good depth to the film.  Of course, you do have the warning that watching this movie does mean that you'll be singing the Col. Bogey March for the rest of the afternoon... 

Side note:  apparently the "Comet: It makes your teeth turn green..." lyrics to the Col. Bogey March are a GS camp thing - neither Anne's guy nor Zach had heard of these lyrics...

The movie is an interesting history lesson too, not so much as fact itself, but as a starting point for  learning something more.  Reading up on the actual events on which the movie is based, the real officers involved in the project were nothing like Col Nicholson. Lt Col Philip Toosey was the real commander involved at the POW camp, and was not a collaborator as Nicholson was portrayed to be. Toosey was actually highly decorated for his efforts in WWII. It angered a lot of other survivors how the officer was portrayed in the movie, but Toosey didn't like the publicity so did not protest much himself. Several books have been written, however, based on his notes and later interviews, so more accurate tellings of the story are available.

More historical trivia: The actual Sergeant-Major Saito (not a colonel), unlike the character portrayed in the film, was said by some to be one of the most reasonable and humane of all of the Japanese officers. Saito and Toosey actually had great respect for each other; Toosey even spoke up on Saito's behalf at the war-crimes tribunal after the war, saving him from the gallows. Toosey and Saito corresponded for many years, and after Toosey's death in 1975, Saito made a pilgrimage to England to visit his grave. (Thank you, wikipedia and IMDB trivia!)

In short, treat this like any other Hollywood production - take the story with a grain of salt, and if interested in the story, do the research on your own afterward. Truth is often more interesting than fiction!

Overall: 5 of 5.  Great movie, and certainly worthy of all the Oscars it earned.  It's an interesting bit of history, especially when you start reading on the real story behind it all.  So, full marks for entertainment and as an educational jumping off point :)

Review: Sexy Beast

One that ended up on the queue after one of the "Top 100 Performances" lists came out, recognizing Ben Kingsley's performance here. So, rather a random one otherwise: Sexy Beast.

Plot:  Gal, a former safe-cracker, has retired with his wife Deedee and their friends Aitch and Jackie to settle in sunny Spain.  The quartet spends their days enjoying sunbathing, barbecues, lazy hunting trips, and other leisurely escapes after years in the London underworld.  Until Don Logan, a childish, violent and rather unforeseen disruption, appears from their past to convince Gal to take on one more job.  Though Gal keeps turning him down, Don doesn't take no for an answer, and the negotiations escalate, leading to... well, watch the movie! :)

The acting is indeed well done, and Ben Kingsley's performance is the highlight.  Ian McShane is good as the master organizer of the heist, but then he's always good as the icy-cold sort of characters.  It's all in the eyes - that dead, cold stare is just so good.  But it's Ben Kingsley who steals the show.  He's childish and aggressive and foul and sociopathic, all wrapped up in one bundle who thinks himself so much smoother than he really is.  One of those people who thinks he's so much bigger, smoother, cooler than he really is.  He really makes the movie worth watching - a different Don would have left a much lesser movie.  I liked a bit of trivia from IMDB's page on the movie - that Kingsley would use his acting of Don to vent "all the anger and tension he had in him, and then he'd be meek as a baby the rest of the day."  I can definitely see it'd be hard to have any aggressive feelings left in you after a full day as Don!

The music is a lot of fun, too. Just an edgy, upbeat sort of soundtrack - dunno, just fun.  Not much more to say :)

The acting's really the highlight of the movie, though. The writing has a lot of... well, oddities, for lack of a better word. For starters, what the heck is the rabbit monster??  There were lots of little things, too, which just didn't flow smoothly.  And the heist just seemed like an after thought, after all the build-up in the first part of the movie.  Left a weird feeling.

Another thought is really more about the advertising, rather than the movie itself.  Since I don't remember the actual trailers, I'm referring to plot summaries (online and on the movie packaging itself), posters, tag-lines, etc.  The advertising really made it seem like a heist film, but in actuality, the movie spends a lot more time on the relation and confrontation between Don and Gal.  Honestly, I think that's part of why I think the story felt so odd.  You think that a movie is a heist movie, then you're expecting something like The Bank Job or Ocean's 11 or The Great Train Robbery or similar.  You aren't expecting something where the actual heist (and all discussion and prep and everything else) is barely 30 minutes of the film.  Had they built up as more a confrontation of the characters (which it was), I probably wouldn't have felt so open-ended.

Overall:  3 of 5.  Some very strong acting (worth a watch for Ben Kingsley alone), some fun points, but rather a weird movie.  Not one for the shelf.