Vicky Cristina Barcelona

I just want to mention that last night I saw the touring company of Beauty and the Beast last night and highly recommend anyone who has a chance to do so.

Title: Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)
Director: Woody Allen
Genre: Drama, Romance
Lead Actor(s): Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall
Rating: PG-13
96 minutes

This movie is not as good as Beauty and the Beast, but still enjoyable. Also the title is ridiculously fun to say. Two American best friends travel to Barcelona for very different reasons. Vicky (Rebecca Hall) goes to further her studies on Catalan culture and specifically the work of the artist Gaudi. Cristina is a restless soul who hasn’t found what she wants in life. They meet a celebrated and sexy artist Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who still feels responsibility for his ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penelope Cruz), whom he still loves. Both Americans fall for the painter and Cristina develops a relationship with the painter, while Vicky marries her fiance.

I enjoy Johansson’s performances in Woody Allen films. In some instances she has been the best aspect of the movie. She is really comfortable in the role. Cristina wants to feel like her odd triangle of a relationship is right for her, but isn’t. She loves the idea more than the reality. She wants to be more of the European sensibility, but still doesn’t know where the hell she fits in.

Javier Bardem is wonderful as the sexy, Latin painter. The last movie I saw of his before this was No Country For Old Men. He convincingly went from a homicidal, asexual psychopath to a seductive, talented artist. He is very much defined by the women he is with. With Vicky he is particularly cerebral. He is far more calculated in his interactions with people and his behaviors. With Maria Elena he is reckless and wild. Almost feral at times. He is overwhelmed by passion for anything he is doing. With Cristina he is a mixture of both that I would define as more artistic. He sees the angles and beauty of things, but is not so filled with it as to lose himself.

Cruz and Hall are the utter opposites of each other. Cruz’s Maria Elena is brash, impatient and all id. Cruz loves those characters because, in my opinion, she understands them. Halls is conservative, critical, crushingly down-to-earth. Cruz is strong in these wild women. Hall seems unsure of herself. I don’t know if this is due to the strong talent surrounding her, her lack of connection with the character, or something else. Another rather weak point in the movie is the narrator. I think it detracted from the film in a way that took the audience out of the experience of watching the movie.

I love how the movie ended. It is very Woody Allen and a good return from some of his more recent missteps. This is a unique and interesting romantic movie. There are some scenes involving homosexuality, subtitles, and large amounts of sexuality. As always if you are not comfortable with any of these things, this movie may not be for you.

******* 8/10

The Prestige

Title: The Prestige (2006)
Director: Christopher Nolan
Genre: Drama, Mystery
Lead Actor(s): Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale
Rating: PG-13
130 minutes

Until today I did not realize that Christopher Nolan directed this, but I should have known stylistically. The movie is about the rivalry between to magicians stemming from the death of one of their wives at the other’s hands. Each becomes obsessed with the other. Christian Bale portrays Alfred Borden and Hugh Jackman is Robert Angier.

Jackman’s wife (Piper Perabo) is the one that is murdered. Following this Angier descends into a madness and obsession with Borden. Even shoots him. Borden debuts a trick where he seemingly teleports from one side of the stage to another. Jackman is wonderfully at varying between the lowest obsessive depression to the high experienced after completing a trick successfully. He also portrays a double for Angier to replicate the vanishing act. His double is a slobbering drunk. Jackman is just as good there as he is as Angier. When Jackman plays a character that has reason for happiness, his joy is palpable.

Bale’s character is a bit harder to wrap one’s head around. He is, however, very well-suited for the role. He is much quieter and reserved than Angier. He also has far more tumultuous relationships with those around him.  His wife even states that she can tell the days he loves her more than magic and the ones he doesn’t. He is powerful in his reservation. This makes the times when he does appear to lose control much more startling.

There are several good supporting actors. Michael Caine plays an illusionist engineer named Cutter who has at one time been a friend to both leads. Scarlett Johansson is originally Angier’s assistant sent to spy on Borden, but ends up falling in love with him. My favorite casting though is David Bowie as Nikola Tesla. If there is ever a biography of him brought to screen, Bowie needs to play that role.

The only thing I don’t particularly like is one of the two twists of the movie. It seems to come from nowhere and does not fit with the rest of the film at all. Unfortunately that is a big part of the movie and it is rather jarring at the end. It also doesn’t help that the first time I watched it was at 3 a.m. and I was exhausted by the time the ending came around. On subsequent viewings though, it was just as jarring. It really takes away from what could have been an utterly great film. I still suggest watching it because the performances are still wonderful and the rest of the film is very interesting and entertaining.

******** 8/10

Serenity

Title: Serenity (2005)
Director: Joss Whedon
Genre: Sci-fi, Action
Lead Actor(s): Nathan Fillion
Rating: PG-13
119 minutes

I adore Joss Whedon. I have watched and loved every television series he has created. This movie is an extension of his series “Firefly” which got royally screwed over by Fox when they decided to air the episodes in the order determined by a pecking chicken. The episodes can be seen in the order intended on the dvd or on hulu which hosts 5 episodes at a time. The film picks up approximately six months after the series ended. Shepherd Book (Ron Glass) and Inara (Morena Baccarain) have left the crew, but everyone else is continuing with their not altogether lawful jobs. Near the beginning, Simon (Sean Maher) and River (Summer Glau) decide to leave Serenity, but when they are at the departing point, Summer goes crazy and maims several bystanders and almost kills Mal (Nathan Fillion). Before fainting after Simon says the safe term, she whispers the word “Miranda.” The crew end up going on a suicide mission to figure out the mystery of Miranda and its deadly consequences. They also have to stave off a dangerous assassin after River and Simon.

Nathan Fillion is pitch-perfect as Mal. He always has been, but after the hiatus the show was forced to go on, he had no problem slipping back into his brown coat. His character is incredibly smart and knows how to play off people. If needed he can play the slightly dim jokester. In truth he is a very adept, loyal, and intelligent captain who would do anything for the safety of his crew.

Chiwetal Ejiofor plays the unnamed assassin. From his first scene, you realize this person is slightly unhinged and really quite terrifying. His weapon of choice is a very sharp, rather long sword. He is very different from the villains glimpsed at in the series (“two by two, hands of blue”). They were utterly emotionless and much more robotic. This guy is a bit scarier because he seems human, yet he has no problem mercilessly murdering several people just to shake those on Serenity.

This is a great follow-up to a great series. All the actors who reprise their roles slip easily back into the characters and the new ones are well-developed and interesting. The mysterious Miranda (which would have appeared at the end of the second season if it had been renewed) makes for a very intriguing and unique plot, in my opinion. The only thing I would have liked to see is them follow through with the “hands of blue” rather than introduce this new character. We got just a glimpse of them in the series and I would have liked to see more. She film is filled with the quintessential Whedon wit. It is fun, frightening, sad, funny, and intriguing all in a fascinating setting. This space western universe that Whedon created really deserved better treatment by Fox and a second season at least.

********* 8/10

Doubt

Title: Doubt (2008)
Director: John Patrick Shanley
Genre: Drama
Lead Actor(s): Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman
Rating: PG-13
104 minutes

This was released the same year that Mamma Mia!. I just want to mind you of this fact as I discuss Meryl Streep role in the movie. It is 1964. A nun, Sister Aloysius (Streep), believes that something untoward is going on between a new priest and a young, black boy. A young nun, Sister James (Amy Adams), is drawn between Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius and her trust in people and her own misgivings.

The fact that Streep went from playing a hippie singing ABBA songs to playing the scariest, most righteous nun in existence in the same year and with equal ability and conviction is astounding. She even looks substantially older in this film than in the previous. The whole movie is based on her conviction in her intuition. As Aloysius she is stricter and more feared than the priest. Her arguments with Father Flynn in her office are especially engaging. Her accent is also quite good. My absolute favorite scene is the last one and specifically the last minute of the movie. Those few seconds make her performance.

I liked Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance, but wanted him to be more likable. He was decently, but I think the dynamics would have been better if he had a little more Tom Hanks in his performance. His sermons were compelling as any good priest should be. The attendants seem to like him. Even the mother of the boy seemed to like this man to a degree. I felt, however, that he was not as amiable when interacting with the students or the fellow nuns/priests. Again the arguments in Aloysius’s office were especially compelling.

The audience was supposed to sympathize with Amy Adams’s character. I think she played the naive, optimistic Sister James wonderfully. She wants to believe the best in people, which I think is a good quality in someone who has devoted themselves to the church. There are times she stands up to Aloysius, but she for the most part tries to smooth everything over and please people. She loves what she does and doesn’t want to cause waves in any fashion. I believe her entire character can be summed up in the line, beautifully delivered to Streep, “You just don’t like him! You don’t like it that he uses a ballpoint pen. You don’t like it that he takes 3 lumps of sugar in his tea. You don’t like it that he likes ‘Frosty the Snowman’ and you are letting that convince you? Of something that’s terrible… Just terrible….”

Because this movie is so faithfully adapted from a play (the author directed and wrote the screenplay), there are some scenes and conversations that last for upwards of 15 minutes. I do think that the director needs a bit more experience behind the camera. There were camera angles that seemed there only because he had seen other movies do them. He knows how to work with actors and material, but the visual aspect needs a little work.

The movie is worth seeing based on Streep’s performance alone. The story is remarkably interesting as well. It takes on a very taboo subject and does it well. I think that if the director gets a bit more experience and confidence in the visual aspect, he can become a great film director. I really encourage watching the movie and finishing it. That last scene stayed with me for quite a while.

******** 8/10

Surrogates

Title: Surrogates (2009)
Director: Jonathan Mostow
Genre: Sci-Fi
Lead Actor(s): Bruce Willis
Rating: PG-13
89 minutes

This was another comic book translation, but I haven’t read the source and actually know very little about it. The premise is that in the future almost everyone in the world will have a thing called a surrogate. This is basically a robot that can look however you want and goes out and lives your life for you. Since surrogates are robots they can’t be killed and any damage done to them while the user is plugged in is not felt by the user. That is what is supposed to happen. The story begins with the destruction of two surrogates, but the police find their users dead as well. Bruce Willis also wears a funny toupee.

Willis plays the lead character, Tom Greer. He is one of the less enthusiastic users of surrogates, but he is in law enforcement and furnished one so it makes sense. His surrogate looks exactly like him except for aforementioned ridiculous toupee. Really, google it. Its hilarious. The make-up artist does and astounding job at making Bruce Willis (now 55) look like he did when he made Die Hard (he was 33). His surrogate acting was weird, but all the surrogate acting was weird they would have loose and human-like movements when dancing, but walking they held their arms like Barbies. I liked his acting when first reacting to the outside world, but for the most part it was heavy-handed and awkward, especially when interacting with his wife’s surrogate.

The movie had an interesting premise but should have had a better lead and more thorough script. The movie was short and it felt that way. I think the awkwardness of the surrogates, who are supposed to be essentially immortal humans, was more the fault of the director than all the actors. The poor choice of hairpiece for Willis also made it horribly hard to take seriously. It seemed more like a joke the director was having with the audience about how silly the whole movie was. I think the premise was very interesting and I don’t know how well the movie captured the book, but the idea deserved better.

**** 4/10

Dirty Dancing

Title: Dirty Dancing (1987)
Director: Emile Ardolino
Genre: Romance
Lead Actor(s): Patrick Swayze, Jennifer Grey
Rating: PG-13
100 minutes

For someone who loves movies, it took me an oddly long time to see this one. I only saw it a year ago as I was packing up my dorm room. I think part of my hesitance stemmed from my confusion over the popularity of the most famous quote. I still don’t really understand why that line in particular caught on. For those of you who haven’t seen the movie, it takes place over the summer of 1963 at a summer getaway in the Catskills. A girl everyone calls Baby, though her real name is Francis, (Jennifer Grey) stands in for the dance partner of Johnny Castle (Patrick Swayze) and they overcome the vast economic differences to fall in love. Yes, that is a very corny two-sentence summary.

Jennifer Grey does quite admirable as Baby. She has fun with the part but is able to handle the more serious bits as well. It is obvious that she enjoyed the people she was working with and just had a good time on the set. Baby also changes quite a bit from the beginning to the end and Grey handles the transition well. Toward the beginning she is an idealistic, well-to-do, daddy’s girl but through her involvement with Johnny and her interactions with Penny Johnson (Cynthia Rhodes), Johnny’s original dance partner who got pregnant and had a back alley abortion, and Robbie Gould (Max Cantor), a ivy league student who after dumping Penny tries to get with Baby’s sister. Grey is just as good as the idealistic Baby, talking about joining the Peace Corp and majoring in the economies of third world country, as she is with the more realistic, yet lighter-spirited end Baby.

Patrick Swayze does great with the dancing and the comedic and romantic parts. He is definitely attractive in the film. The complicated part of his performance is when he gets serious, discussing his life style and his interactions with the guests at the resort. It could be viewed as Swayze being uncomfortable with the more revealing and more dramatic parts of his role or it could be viewed as Swayze showing that Johnny is uncomfortable and unused to someone caring about his life and thus awkward when discussing it. I choose to believe the latter, mainly because it makes the movie better.

I must say I love Jerry Orbach, who plays Baby’s father, Dr. Houseman. I love Orbach anytime though. He plays Lumiere in Beauty and the Beast for those who didn’t know. He helps Penny after the awful abortion and at the same time, loses his conception of his perfect daughter.

This movie is a different type of classic. It so defines a generation, despite being set before most of that generation was born. It doesn’t have utterly astounding acting or directing or even a profoundly original screenplay. It is a classic because of the feeling it gives those who watch it. Again it is more of a girl movie than a guy one, but that doesn’t mean that men should be discouraged from watching it. I think there are elements both sexes can enjoy. It is a fun movie with a very good soundtrack and is just as enjoyable 23 years.

******* 7/10

St. Trinian’s

Title: St. Trinian’s (2007)
Director: Oliver Parker, Barnaby Thompson
Genre: Comedy
Lead Actor(s): Rupert Everett, Talulah Riley
Rating: PG-13
97 minutes

This is a British film set at a boarding school called St. Trinian’s. Anabelle Fritton (Talulah Riley) is sent to the school by her father hoping to get a discount due to his sister being the headmistress, Camilla Fritton (Rupert Everett). Anabelle struggles to fit in to the new style of school, while the school tries to figure out how to stave off the creditors and is being investigated by the head of education, Geoffrey Thwaites (Colin Firth), who is an old flame of Camilla’s.

Rupert Everett is hilarious as Camilla Fritton. The scenes with Thwaites are especially entertaining. Camilla’s personality is modeled off of Camilla Parker Bowles and, although I cannot really comment on the accuracy, it does make for a very funny character. Everett also plays Anabelle’s father and Camilla’s brother, Carnaby Fritton. His role is equally funny and as well acted.

Talulah Riley is a little awkward in her role as Anabelle. At the beginning she is very stubbornly against the school, but with very little prodding, she eases into the unique school. Riley seems most comfortable toward the end after her St. Trinian makeover. She still feels awkward. The coolest student is head girl, Kelly, played by Gemma Arterton. She is cool, calm, and collected. She also seems to fit into any situation.

The biggest downfall of the movie is the convoluted plot. There is the Anabelle fitting in storyline; there is the romance between Camilla and Thwaites; there is the education inspection; there is the steal a painting to save the school plotline; there is the school contest to get into the art gallery plotline. It made for a lot of story in not a lot of time and none of the threads getting the resolution they needed.

The movie is a fun comedy with interesting characters, but there isn’t enough development of the personalities. I don’t know that there is any aspect that would really interest guys in this movie. I love the school song and actually bought it the night I watched it, but this is not great cinema or even that well written. All the heart of the movie comes from the actors doing the best they can with an overly complicated script.

***** 5/10

Chicago

Title: Chicago (2002)
Director: Rob Marshall
Genre: Musical, Crime
Lead Actor(s): Renée Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones
Rating: PG-13
113 minutes

This is the movie credited with the resurgence of the musical genre. The original play premiered in 1974 with a revival in 1996. The movie follows the circumstances of the murder of a woman’s, Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger), lover in the 1920’s. She kills him and is put in jail with the infamous Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones) who is accused of murdering her sister and husband after finding them in a compromising position. Roxie dreams of working in vaudeville and has musical fantasies in that style.

I have the same problem with the star of the movie as I do with the star of the Broadway show, which I saw while in New York two weeks ago. I just don’t buy them as the character. I think Zellweger was the completely wrong choice. First off her energy doesn’t fit the time period. There is something about her that seems awkward during the jazz age. I also am not a fan of her singing, although I admire her for doing it herself.

I, however, love Catherine Zeta-Jones as Velma Kelly. She is fantastic in every way as Velma. Her singing and dancing are meticulous. She also seems to deeply understand the character. She is able to turn it on when performing and shows her weakness when the paparazzi are no longer interested in her. She is absolutely wonderful in this role.

Richard Gere as Billy Flynn and Queen Latifah as Mama Morton are both very good in their parts too. Queen Latifah is able to belt it out in “When You’re Good to Mama” and seems to have fun in the scene. Gere is quite surprising as Flynn. I never would have thought that he had this musical ability in him, but he is great as the smarmy lawyer. The supporting character I really like though is John C. Reilly as Amos. His rendition of “Mr. Cellophane” is almost heartbreaking. While not as homely as Amos generally is supposed to be, he plays the gullible husband quite well.

I am also not a fan of the musical in Roxie’s head idea. There were moments where it worked, “Cell Block Tango,” and moments where it really didn’t, “Roxie.” Unfortunately the low points of the movie out-weigh the high. A lot of this is the failure of Zellweger and to an extent, Marshall. It is a fun movie that is both dark and comedic with excellent performances by Zeta-Jones, Gere, Queen Latifah, and Reilly.

****** 6/10

The Terminal

Title: The Terminal (2004)
Director: Steven Spielberg
Genre: Comedy, Drama
Lead Actor(s): Tom Hanks
Rating: PG-13
128 minutes

This is a bit different from the films that Spielberg is best known for. Tom Hanks stars as Viktor Navorski, a Krakozhian citizen who tries to visit New York City but is stranded in JFK airport when his country erupts into civil war. He can’t return home due to the danger and isn’t allowed to go into New York because his papers became invalid when the government was overthrown. Instead he spends approximately a year living in the airport.

Again I think Hanks was miscast. Firstly he does not look Eastern European. Secondly I was always distinctly aware that I was watching Tom Hanks in the role. A successful actor in a role should be the role and have the audience forget who the actor is. Hanks does as best as he can in the role. I don’t think he nailed the accent, but it wasn’t hideously distracting. He also displays very little connection with his romantic interest, Amelia Warren (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Zeta-Jones is about as successful as Hanks in her role. She doesn’t connect with her role either. She seems awkward and off throughout the majority of the movie.

Where the movie really shines is in the minor characters. Stanley Tucci is the villainous airport immigration officer. As always Tucci is magnificent in the role. I have never seen him in a role where he didn’t shine. I also particularly love Zoe Saldana as the security officer who is a hidden Trekkie. My favorite, however, is Kumar Pallana as Gupta Rajan, a custodian who killed a man in his native India. He seems like a grumpy, crochety old fart (he was 86 when this came out), but he shows that he has a tender side.

The recreation of an airport is astounding. It feels like a real airport. The attention to detail is impeccable and the set dresser/art director should have been recognized. The script has some very tender and touching moments and it is certainly an interesting concept, but the lead actors and, in some part, the direction weight down a wonderfully diverse and interesting collection of minor characters.

****** 6/10

Robin Hood

So I was completely right to assume that I would be unable to post while in New York. The internet in our hotel was $14.10 every 24-hour period and although there was a Starbucks just below our, I was crazy busy and generally rather tired at the end of the day.

Title: Robin Hood (2010)
Director: Ridley Scott
Genre: Action
Lead Actor(s): Russell Crowe
Rating: PG-13
140 minutes

After seeing this movie, I have come to the decision that I am not a fan of Russell Crowe. Even in the movies I like, it isn’t due to Crowe. I did like Gladiator, but it was mostly because of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance. This movie tells the story of Robin Hood before he became Robin Hood. The first scene is of Robin is during The Crusades and he is just a lowly archer named Robin Longstride. In this movie he is not a nobleman wronged and forced into outlawry. Instead he leaves a battle and runs to the woods with three of his friends. They come along a slaughter of knights, including Robin of Loxley, who were bringing King Richard’s helmet back to England. They quartet don the deceased knights’ garb and Robin Longstride assumes the identity of Robin of Loxley. He goes to Nottingham and basically assumes Loxley’s life after meeting with the deceased’s father.

I think Robin was completely miscast. This is supposed to be the very beginning of Robin Hood’s life and yet, Russell Crowe looks like he would be an elder in a medieval town. He also does not have the vitality a young Robin should have. I think this may have been a director wanting to use an actor no matter how appropriate the role. I can think of several actors who would have been more appropriate than Crowe, especially for such a young Robin. Hell, Kevin Costner had more energy than Crowe does. Crowe also lacks the swagger that is so central to Robin. I think that he completely misses the personality of Robin.

I also had a problem with the characterization of Robin. In my opinion, a large aspect of Robin’s drive is his removal from the nobility. That is lost here. Instead Robin is a commoner who would have stayed in the woods and away from everyone if it weren’t for an accidental blood oath to the dying Loxley. Will Scarlett, Little John, and Allan A’Dayle follow Robin faithfully, but I don’t see much of a reason for them to. He never shows a lot of leadership over them and they don’t seem to have any reason to follow him over say Little John.

Luckily there was some good acting and fun interpretations. I loved Cate Blanchett as Maid Marion. If Robin had been appropriately age cast, she would have been too old for the actor. Due to the choice of Crowe, Blanchett is completely fitting. She is a badass. There is really little other way to describe her. She stands up to the perverted, though not very threatening, Sheriff when all strong and able men were gone to The Crusades. I do find her acceptance of Robin Longstride as a replacement for her husband, Robin of Loxley, a bit rushed and improbable.

I also very much enjoyed Little John. Kevin Durand brings the right amount of humor, brawn, and idiocy to the character. He is probably one of the most enjoyable aspects of the movie. His facial expressions and actions are remarkably appropriate and intelligent. Durand understands his character much more than some of the others. I also liked the performance of Mark Addy as Friar Tuck. His adoration of his bees is very sweet as is his sacrifice of them to help save the town from attacking French. He also displays his reluctance but acceptance of his profession with skill and believability.

The thing I had the biggest problem with would probably be the script. The original script focused on the Sheriff of Nottingham and had him as an anti-hero with Robin being the villain. I think that story would have been vastly more interesting than the one we were served with. The treatment of the characters and the legend seems almost rude. There is also a ridiculously large amount of villains. There’s the Sheriff, Prince John, Godfrey, and the King of France. It made for a convoluted and awkward plot.

Personally I will stick with the Disney Robin Hood, Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (Purely for the superb performance of Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham). I think the original idea would have been far more interesting and unique. There is also the tragic casting choice of Crowe. The film might have been salvageable had an appropriate actor been cast. Instead wonderful performances from some supporting characters are overshadowed by the horrible script and lead actor.

****4/10