Showing posts with label film criticism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film criticism. Show all posts

Monday, July 26, 2010

Neal Schindler was pretty damn disappointed by "Inception."

22 hours ago
    • Irina Litvin aww really? what was so bad about it?
      22 hours ago

    • Dain Michael Down You are the only person I've heard yet to say anything negative
      21 hours ago

    • Fai Sigalov I think the hype is now exceeding the goodness of the movie, so people's expectations are too high. but I thought the movie was reasonably good.
      21 hours ago

    • Neal Schindler Dain, the writing was strictly functional and mostly humorless, I didn't care about any of the characters (which has never been true before in a Christopher Nolan movie for me), and all in all I thought it was a muddled mess, visually exciting at times but mostly boring dramatically and narratively. And Nolan's "The Prestige" is just the opposite: lovely in nearly every way.
      21 hours ago

    • Neal Schindler I think he should get his brother to help him write screenplays again. Also, the editing was really bad. Like, unusually bad.
      21 hours ago

    • Tim O'Connor The three people I saw it with, and I, were all disappointed.
      17 hours ago


    • Reed Forrester
      ‎90% of the dialogue was like this:
      "We have to gobbledgook now or really bad blah blah will happen!"
      "What do you mean?"
      "Thank you for asking me that leading question! What I meant was yet another nonsense rule about why we have to do this ridiculous but visually cool thing set to tense music."
      "But what about your psychological drama that is putting us all in grave danger of something or other?"
      "I stoically deny that I am controlled by my deep pain, but don't worry because at the end of the movie I will resolve my dilemma in an emotionally affecting way and redeem myself."

      12 hours ago

    • Jason Vanhee Absolutely agree. It was almost impossible to invest in anything happening, the movie was internally inconistant in a terribly sloppy way, and in the end, it possessed no meaning at all.
      12 hours ago






    • Jessica Punta when it opened with leonardo decraprio on like a beached whale, i was like "Titanic 2" here we go.
      11 minutes ago

    • Neal Schindler I'm not a Leo hater, but this was hardly his best role.
      2 seconds ago


Saturday, October 31, 2009

"Mammoth" expectations


I'm a big fan of Swedish director Lukas Moodysson, so I was excited to discover that he has a new film coming out -- with Michelle Williams in a lead role, no less. It'll be great to see her continue to flex the acting muscles she showed off in Brokeback Mountain. Both Together and the devastating Lilja 4-ever demonstrated Moodysson's skillful touch with actors and mastery of tone, so I'm eager to see what he brings to a fairly ordinary-looking troubled-marriage story. Also anxious to see Andrew Bujalski's newest, Beeswax, at Northwest Film Forum this week. I've been following Bujalski's work ever since I reviewed his wonderful feature debut, Funny Ha Ha (scroll down after clicking to read my review), and I'm always interested to see what he's up to. Doesn't hurt that Beeswax has been getting raves from many a critic, including Kibbutz regular Leyna Krow. If that girl doesn't know about mumblecore, who does?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

"Down to the Bone"


When we meet Irene, the working-class heroine of Debra Granik's stunning 2004 addiction saga, she's getting her kids ready for Halloween. This first scene expresses two of the film's main themes: the act of hiding behind a false face, and the attempts of a fundamentally good person to do the best with what she has in front of her. Irene's older son, dressed in a pretty good Houdini costume, doesn't really want to go trick-or-treating at all; her younger one, who didn't get the costume he wanted, seems equally unenthusiastic. Irene tries to get them excited about the holiday, but her show of excitement is forced and nervous. We soon realize why she's anxious: She's due for a snort of cocaine. When she retires to the bathroom to get it, her older son stands outside the door. He wants to know what's going on, but we sense that he's already all too aware.

Down to the Bone is set in upstate New York, in the bleak midwinter. The film looks grainy, which isn't artifice but a testament to its low budget. (It was produced with assistance from the Sundance Institute.) Vera Farmiga plays Irene, and she's as good as everyone says. I've been interested in Farmiga ever since I read Lynn Hirschberg's terrific New York Times Magazine article about the dearth of strong female roles in Hollywood films these days. Hirschberg portrays Farmiga as a case in point: She's an actress of prodigious talent who wishes she could be the next Meryl Streep, but the parts simply aren't there. She can toil in no-budget pictures of great artistic integrity that nearly no one sees, or she can try to keep her head high through trash like Orphan, one of 2009's most-ridiculed movies.

Of course there are roles in between -- her turn in Martin Scorsese's Oscar-winning The Departed won deserved critical acclaim, and she does astounding things with a less-than-amazing part in Wayne Kramer's loopy action flick Running Scared -- but that isn't the point. The point is that in the '70s and '80s, an actress like Streep could make a career out of meaty roles with minimal slumming. As Hirschberg notes:
As recently as the 80’s, women were often the sole stars of mainstream studio movies like “Terms of Endearment,” “Moonstruck” and “Out of Africa.” For years before, from Vivien Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara in “Gone With the Wind” to Bette Davis or Katharine Hepburn in countless roles to Jane Fonda in “Klute” or Diane Keaton in “Annie Hall,” actresses carried films to box-office success. But today, women in mainstream films more often populate the margins as girlfriends, mothers and wives, often with stereotypical personalities.
Bone resembles SherryBaby (2006), which starred Maggie Gyllenhaal and also delved sensitively and intelligently into the life of a troubled young woman looking for a way out of her woes. Though the two films share both plot points and themes, Granik's feels even more real. She uses mundane settings to tremendous effect, familiarizing us with the minutiae of Irene's everyday life in a way that sticks with us long after the closing credits.

The movie depicts its secondary characters with great respect and even-handedness. Irene's beleaguered husband, Steve (Clint Jordan), is both out of touch with her needs and worthy of our compassion; the man she's got her eye on, Bob (Hugh Dillon), a struggling ex-addict, is a liar but also, ultimately, a good man in the same way that she's a good woman. Dillon deftly balances Bob's charm and deceptiveness, and Granik refuses to make him a villain. Because of this, his future and Irene's remain uncertain at the end of the film, which makes its depiction of drug dependency feel all the more accurate.

The song "Point of Disgust," by Low, plays over the end credits, and both lyrics and music -- spare, melancholy, faintly hopeful -- fit the movie so perfectly that they might have been written specifically for it (though, in fact, they weren't). It's worth mentioning as well that the young actors who play Irene's sons are both superbly cast and exceedingly well directed. Their utterly believable performances add to the film's emotional complexity. When one of Irene's rehab counselors asks her why she's trying to kick drugs, she says it's for her kids. His response reveals just how nuanced Granik's movie truly is.

Bone is riveting throughout because it contains not one wasted scene, and hardly a wasted word; it's compelling also because Farmiga gives a masterful performance without a shred of vanity. Here's hoping someone, sometime soon, writes another role she's truly worthy of.

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Creepy sadness for kids


My friend Jeni recently posted Andrew O'Hehir's list of 10 landmark "children's movies" that might not good choices for family film night after all. I have some issues with his logic: Sure, Spirited Away is sophisticated enough for adults, but many children can handle difficult themes earlier than we think they can. When O'Hehir cites the movie's "creepy-sad nuances -- like the recognition that one's parents do indeed die eventually" as a reason to keep the kiddies away, he's ignoring a long history of tales, fables, and bedtime stories that have dark edges, or even dark plot elements.

What makes a film suitable for children, I think, is a point of view that resonates with them, and material that isn't so troubling or confusing that it takes them out of the emotional and narrative experience. Bambi's mother dies in Bambi, and parents worldwide recognize that as an appropriate way to introduce their kids to the notion of mortality. Spirited Away may add an aspect of "creepiness" to its melancholy, but that doesn't mean children shouldn't or won't understand and love it. (See also: Maurice Sendak on whether Where the Wild Things Are is "too scary" for kids.) I will give O'Hehir major props, however, for making me want to see The Witches again; I'd honestly forgotten it existed.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Hot critic-on-critic action

Yesterday Roger Ebert retracted his defense of New York Press film critic Armond White's negative review of District 9, the new Peter Jackson-produced sci-fi film that functions as an allegory for apartheid. Ebert seems to have been influenced in part by White's positive take on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, which Ebert has spent weeks (though it feels like months) disparaging -- presumably with good reason, though I haven't seen it and won't.

Whatever you may think of the alien-robot flick, there's little doubt that if someone were to write a thesis on it, the writing would sound like this excerpt from White's review:
Based on the original 1980s Transformer toys by Hasbro and subsequent TV cartoons and comic books, the Transformer movies expound on this cultural plenitude. Their fascination with technology—the way common objects rearrange, expand or shrink as if having a benevolent or malicious life of their own—drives the stories.

Bay is an ideal director to realize this peculiar genre, which remakes the surfeit of adolescent commercial media as a means of multimedia gratification.These cars, trucks, motorcycles and planes—both human-friendly Autobots and dastardly Decepticons—metamorphose fast, but their transfiguration is like the mechanical toy descriptions in E.T.A. Hoffman: fantastic and uncanny.
Both White and Ebert address the real usefulness of the popular backlash against White's takedown of District 9. The incident makes it clear that Rotten Tomatoes -- which listed White's review, for a time, as the only negative one in existence -- can cultivate critical groupthink, such that dissenters are seen as willful contrarians or simply humorless grouches.

As someone whose taste is more predictable than White's, I appreciate dissent but am not always confident that calling a writer-director-producer like Jackson "intellectually juvenile," as White does, is the right way to go. Though if that's what you think, more power to you. I'm just saying ad hominem can get old for the reader, unless the reader likes the smell of blood in the air. Yet the whole mini-scandal helps Rotten Tomatoes addicts think more critically about the site, and about whether the big percentage at the top is worth paying so much attention to. And that's a good thing.