hanna: i still love joe wright

i saw JOE WRIGHT's HANNA a while ago and couldn't place it. it's a story that's been told somewhere before, so when walking out of the theatre after watching my favorite director's latest work, my first thought wasn't awe. it wasn't disappointment. i knew i needed to sleep on it.

HANNA tells the tale of a girl (SAOIRSE RONAN) that's some sort of government project. she has undergone rigorous training by her father (ERIC BANA), and is sent on a mission to kill a woman (CLAIRE DAINES). she learns a bit about herself along the way.

she runs. she sleeps. she kills. images containing a decaying amusement park and an awesome score by the chemical brothers sometimes suggest the perversity of an adolescent female made to murder. but i think that's all, folks, which begs me to ask: is telling an oh-too-familiar story in a well-directed way worth the $8 - $15?

even so: interesting characters. beautiful cinematography. great acting. good pacing. perfect for a friday night at home, but can't wait for what's next for mr. wright.

last night: sex, love, and a frenchman

MASSY TADJEDIN's LAST NIGHT boasts one of the most attractive casts i've ever seen in a film. and what do attractive people do? sleep with each other.

writer/director tadjedin, however, doesn't make it a movie about sex, but a story of a married couple (KIERA KNIGHTLEY and SAM WORTHINGTON) confused about their faith in one another when confronted with temptation (french GUILLAUME CANET and EVA MENDES). after a fight, a business trip divides the main couple between philadelphia and their home in new york, and it is during this one night apart that they are separately confronted with a sexual/romantic itch. the film's scheme keeps its audience guessing how its characters will react to their given circumstances of emotion, desire, intoxication, and doubt throughout the night. all four have backstories, but a viewer must ask themselves what they want of the other: is it sex, or is it love? how do they express it? to this plot, marriage is an unmistakeable roadblock for its players in their exploits outside, and one that elevates the plot to honest drama.

it is full of awkward moments that add to immediacy of its viewing experience, and feels more like a stage play than anything that has been on screen for a while. the story and its tellers don't try convince their audience of a specific viewpoint of love and marriage, but try to figure it out, making this film a genuine gem in a genre generally jaded to the male or female sex. beautifully shot, well acted (i think something's clicked for knightley), and skillfully directed, LAST NIGHT will read you as well as you read it.

certified copy: let's talk about art

the first hour and a half of director ABBAS KIAROSTAMI's COPIE CONFORME (CERTIFIED COPY) offers a most profound discussion on art and marriage. it is, for the most part, a walk-and-talk; the audience follows two opinionated, intelligent, 40/50-something europeans through a small tuscan town as they talk about the nature, purpose, and viewing experience of a work of art and the nature, purpose, and experience of the lasting romantic human relationship otherwise known as marriage.

an obvious story begins as the two converse and middle-aged sparks fly, but after a beautiful exchange between JULIETTE BINOCHE and an old, wrinkled italian barista about the pangs and privileges of wifehood, things just get weird. binoche and her male counterpart, WILLIAM SHIMELL, start without announcement to behave as if they were a married couple and have been for a good while. they act strangely, silly, forcing the emotions of their 'characters' and failing to react accordingly, as the film's genuine first half suggests. where had the story gone? and where did this french absurdism spring from? was it important thematically, poetically, even structurally? what was this to communicate now about marriage, about art?

i rode the remainder of the movie out in anger, feeling as if we the audience had been cheated out of eight matinee dollars. part of what we as audience members pay for is the story that what was marketed to us (SEE TRAILER); part an enjoyable viewing experience, a dramatic foray into a world unknown; part an original worldview, a point-of-view that expresses truth about humanity and the madness that surrounds us.

perhaps mr. kiarostami has satisfied that last part, perhaps not. binoche and WILLIAM SHIMELL's characters speak at length about the insignificance of whether a piece of art is a copy, for the viewing experience remains the same. the 'copy' of binoche and shimell's fabricated relationship, on the other hand, was hard to observe. if CERTIFIED COPY's two recurring topics were art and marriage, he has to be comparing them. is he saying marriages cannot be faked with any success? is that some twisted critique of romantic drama? unfortunately, this argument stems more as a product of my frustration than it does from specific evidence or claims of the film, so i can hardly take anything in this paragraph seriously.

is this a movie i can recommend? for the first hour and a half, yes, it's a great experience. in its entirety, however, it seems at best to be certifiable confusion.

of gods and men: a story of faith for euro-loving hipsters everywhere

some french cistercian monks got more than they bargained for during a terrorist uprising in algeria a few years ago, inspiring this magnificent film to be made. OF GODS AND MEN explores the unique dramatic situation of this group of holy men that stood determined to live out their vocation as Catholic priests in a foreign country.

the film's beauty extends from these men coming to realize what faith is in the midst of death. while one might think a priest would have a solid grasp on the mysteries of what faces a man after death and their personal relationship to the divine, we are able to see doubt spread across their faces as terrorists intrude their monastery. it is a true drama here, seeing these men come to terms with their own priestly vows when their lives are threatened, and it seems here to be the honest conversion of saints or martyrs.

great characters. fantastic direction. so cannes. so euro. so beautiful and thought-provoking. absolutely powerful. for our hipster generation that rarely puts faith above itself, i think this is one to consider seeing.

mark wahlberg is a firework

david o. russell makes a directing comeback with this more run-of-the-mill feature, something definitely worth watching for anyone that likes a good underdog tale. feel free to disagree, but apart from unzipping in 1997's BOOGIE NIGHTS, marky mark can be a pretty boring actor. he stars as micky ward, a boxer that supports the unfortunate family that manages him.

the storyline follows the relationship of the family, highlighting the interesting, dramatic bond between brothers micky and dicky (christian bale in his best role yet--just try not to tear up in the film's last shot). pipedreams, greed for dollars, and fame tear the massachusetts townies apart. in the end we have the firework-inspired success story of a boxer whose main family members learn the value, strength, and importance of individual will power.

russell's THE FIGHTER is no plastic bag drifting through the wind. bale and melissa leo add the dynamite to a story that reflects the glistening, triumphant human spirit.

dogtooth: bite on this

yorgos lanthimos' DOGTOOTH. it's messed up in all the right places.

here's the story: two parents keep three kids (now matured young adults) at home, teaching them to fear the world that exists beyond their yard's fence. when they happen to accidentally learn of outside words and ideas, their parents explain them away (for example, they are taught the word "pussy" to mean a large light, and a "zombie" is a yellow flower). one of the three children acts up throughout the film despite physical punishment. because she creates stress for the family, we as audience members have enough of a plot to follow.

lanthimos begs his audience to reflect on how parents raise children, specifically comparing these kids to the domestic pets many families own today. he tells his story through scenes with unnerving action, imposing frightening and bizarre images on the minds of anyone who chooses to see it. (the clip below provides a great idea of the film's tone; trust me, though, it's just the tip of the iceberg.)

this cannot be anyone's cup o' tea, nor can i give it a stellar recommendation, but by golly does it start a discussion.

127 hours: tik tok

damn, it would suck to be literally stuck between a rock and a hard place, wasting away until time snatched your soul from your nubile body. that's where aron ralston (james franco) finds himself in 127 HOURS, deserted in the desert and left only to imagine escape, the past, and his own loneliness.

danny boyle mounts the director's chair to tell this true story, something that proves to be both a cinematic and riveting experience. for the most part, audience members live the character's experience (though not as suffocatingly-so as this year's BLACK SWAN), realizing his regrets, despair, much-needed humor, and most memorably, his pain. in living the accelerated 127 hours with mr. ralston, we can see boyle's argument against solitary livelihood when our time on earth can be/is so limited.

it's a fun one--heartfelt, too. kate mara forever.

the super objective of the social network

here's what i admire most about the FINCHER / SORKIN SOCIAL NETWORK: i could not figure out character mark zuckerberg's super objective. i saw it again. i could not figure out character mark zuckerberg's super objective. at least not with definition...

high praise to DAVID FINCHER for crafting a visually intriguing story to the important textual melody of AARON SORKIN, who writes playful words and interesting characters into power battles that drive the electric current of what i consider the best film of 2010.

but what drives EISENBERG's zuckerberg? is it the girl (erica albright aka a perfect ROONEY MARA)? is it to make her feel mistaken for dumping him in the brilliant opening scene of the film? is it the desire to prove that his geek-dom reigns superior to privileged meathead jocks? is it to prove to everyone that despite his nerdiness and humble appearance, he can gain notoriety and be an important, sought-after figure? he's got angst, that's for sure.

i believe the answer to my above italicized question holds the key to understanding this movie, and i'm interested in seeing what other people have to say.

blue valentine: thinkin' 'bout love in the 21st century

as opposed to my earlier post, DEREK CIANFRANCE's BLUE VALENTINE is a fine example of minimalist storytelling. we aren't presented with overwrought structure or unnecessary supporting characters, but simply the future, the past, the actors, and the camera. it leaves one trying to understand love and marriage through looking at the good, the bad, the kindling, and the ending.

in a day when the pre-marriage counseling is hardly taken seriously and love's feeling is more important than sacrifice and commitment, this is the tale of many love stories (though, yes, this is much more indie). here, love is not a spiritual thing.

CIANFRANCE seems to compare love's feeling to love's commitment and the selfless dedication that a marriage asks of both its members. he doesn't point out the important moments to us, though in the film's wake, we are left to study the characters and see what moments explain the disillusionment at hand. cindy (played by a terrific michelle williams) lives for feeling. dean (a well-studied ryan gosling) found his life's one true mate. her fairytale fades, his continues. what happens when a couple first loses that feeling of love? and what if one also loses the desire to keep the flame flickering?

the performances are top-notch, the filmmaking great. one complaint: too many close-up shots in the film's first hour make the audience feel unpoetically / inappropriately claustrophobic. not a good date movie, but a great one to see. oscar bait? i'm not sure, but this one sure lives up to its title.

somewhere?

sophia's not my cup of tea, but i can't say i didn't enjoy watching it. with SOMEWHERE, her latest effort in directing, she not so much tells a story as captures a snapshot of a lifestyle and its implications.

many critics have compared this to european cinema, and this comparison makes sense. the film is quiet. the script is not full of words. the acting is generally genuine and not forced.

but if film directors are storytellers, one should expect them to tell a story. instead, miss coppola presents many prolonged snapshots from the perspective of an unassuming observer, seemingly expecting her audience to hyper-intellectualize the subject matter of her chosen moving images in order to reach a conclusion or formulate their own version of a storyline.

from my experience, good european cinema doesn't do that... so why the comparison? this is narrative minimalism to an extreme, and although it can be mildly entertaining to peek into the life of a fictional hollywood star and his lack of a family life, this seems to be less of storytelling and more of studying character in the form of a feature film.

the kids are all right: the film's just a'ight

there was one moment during this film when i felt like there was dramatically intriguing stuff. otherwise, THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT offers an interesting look at the levels of sacrifice necessary in a long-term "marriage," gay or not. the story's stituation is unique to lezzie partnerships, however, for breadwinner mom one (annette bening) and dykey mom two (julienne moore) bore children together thanks to one hippie sperm donor (mark ruffalo). the resulting children, now of age, search the hippie down, and his brief addition to the family catalyzes a long-comin', bedrock-shakin' fight between moms one and two.

for conservative theatre-goers, director LISA CHOLODENKO highlights what is probably one of biggest problems in a lesbian marriage: the need to feel sexually fulfilled by something only a man can provide. it's interesting to see that play out dramatically, though in the end i'm not sure it provides the argument it's necessarily going for in proving the absolute viability of gay marriage between women when compared to marriage between man and woman. what it does prove is that this group of people under the "momses," as one character describes, is a fully functioning, alternative family unit.

again: there's one moment that makes this movie absolutely worthwhile, but i can't in good mind spoil it. the filmmaking at that point is great. otherwise, the movie's pretty indie and the performances are generally good, though not oscar-worthy as many people are labelling it. this is simply the mainstream gay movie of the year.

rabbit hole: i love aaron eckhart

it's not a snooze-fest, but it is slowly paced, which is met evenly with funny dialogue. the filmmaking's not anything to write about, but the story is tender and the performances are good. RABBIT HOLE catches two parents in the uneasy wake of the loss of their four-year-old son.

ice queen nicole kidman does well here, but i'm obsessed with aaron eckhart. his performance is immediate and honest, the kind that can bring an audience toward feeling and understanding the pain and confusion that parents can go through in such a sad situation.

all in all, the film is not life changing, but because it feels like a theatre play (and was adapted to the screen from the play of its same name) it fits a film crowd that also likes theatre. the script showcases some relative, anti-traditionalist tones and dialogue, but in the end it is a portrait of a confused contemporary american couple just trying to get on.

jeff bridges has true grit, and other things

i'm glad i haven't seen the john wayne edition. critics have been overly comparing of the two TRUE GRITs, even when the poor director duo claims to have not seen the original. this production clearly stands on its own, and anyone walking out of the movie theatre would agree.

this has brought up something, though, that i feel a need to address. i've long considered film to be the newest liberal art. it's an interesting cross between drama (or theatre--whatever you choose to call it) and literature. it's storytelling, but through a strange, updated, and easily accessible medium.

in theatre, plays are constantly and consistently reproduced. different people want to tell the glass menagerie or a midsummer night's dream different ways, and it's generally accepted that this is what you do in theatre.

in literature, however, it's much more daring to re-write a story (with the exception of translations and re-writing for young or dumb people). once it's printed, it can last forever-ish. on the flip side, in theatre, a patron's opportunity to experience the storytelling from this specific point of view is gone once the show wraps its last performance.

and then we have film, which rests in a strange limbo between. one can both go to the theatre and own a copy to watch in the comfort of his own home. like theatre, actors perform for a limited time, but like literature, it is captured forever. at the helm of both rests the author / auteur / director, which in this case is ethan and joel coen. the brothers knew about the old TRUE GRIT, but they decided to make a new one anyway, namely because they had a different way to tell the story. this has met with interesting reaction--some people are even upset that a classic was being re-made. in theatre, this is normal. in literature, it isn't.

after seeing jeff bridges tear this shit up so fine and meeting the newcomer hailee steinfeld, i only wish that competent filmmakers like the coens dared to remake classics. this 2010 edition of TRUE GRIT was so much fun to watch, and i imagine the first would not have been as accessible to twenty-first century moviegoers.

but let's not pull some michael haenke funny games and remake your own movie (austria's 1997 FUNNY GAMES and america's 2007 FUNNY GAMES) with the same effing shot list. bitch just wanted to make it rain.

tron (lives up to its flashy, but mediocre) legacy

the visuals and production design were awesome. it had potential and a kick-a$$$$$$ marketing campaign, but history repeated itself.



but there were some really cool focus shifts in some of the shots!

the king's speech: epic friendship

the script's good, the direction fine, and the casting superb (colin firth is perfect), but it really is the story here that exercises your heart, which for some reason has caught me off guard in an amazing way. the events and characters are factual. a group of intrigued story tellers have assembled a skilled team to tell this story of rare friendship amidst admittedly bizarre social conditions, one strange enough for a cinematic double-take and important enough for the whole world to see and hear. THE KING'S SPEECH doesn't call too much attention to how it's telling itself, but instead lets it play out with a strangely-arched string of wonderful moments, and with history and tradition as its support.

the only glaring missteps here are in cinematography, in which someone thought it a good idea to make overly artsy choices that read as visual stoopidity to this reviewer. and to tell the truth, i could have gone for an even harder emotional tug (i like to try to resist as hard as possible to retain my emotional manliness in the movie theatre) in the final moments of the film, but i assume that's just my taste.

after leaving my seat after the end credits, the idea that a humble friendship can influence the history of a nation and culture rings true. although not royalty, our friendships can be epic--are epic--with appropriate vulnerability, humor, and love. go see it.

the black swan: art or artsy?

darren aronofsky’s THE BLACK SWAN is a well-stylized tour de force with natalie portman at its helm. some critics have labeled it as schizophrenic low-camp, while others have praised it as art. both points of view are valid; the two-hour swan song falls into a couple traps on its journey to subconsciously investigate america’s contemporary struggle with identity and self-worth.

aronofsky uses mirrors and reflection at first as a visual motif before they become a cliché part of the film storyline. our protagonist, in a perfect and inspired performance by portman, is required to look at herself often and critically as a ballet dancer. one can imagine she views herself through the perspective of her own mother, a damaged, proud, and lonely individual, and one can safely understand the young ballerina's goals: not to simply dance, but to be recognized for it and gain a role of notoriety in her company. when given the role of the swan queen, we see her begin to explore a newfound identity and acknowledge the existence of her own worth perhaps beyond those of her own mother's goals (she surpasses her mother's own career accomplishments). although this previous act of the movie was necessary to build the audiences vision of aronofsky's nina sayers, the meat of the movie starts here. although nina's personality resists, she ends in succumbing to what is more than a dream role, resulting in her own debatably untimely death.

while the story’s structure is uneven, aronofsky covers this up brilliantly due to expert pacing and story arch placement. one thing remains certain to this audience member: if you don’t mind a crazy trip, you’ll eat up almost every second of this. we are not led to think, “OMG she’s crazy,” and simply leave it at that, but are asked to consider her experience phenomonologically. the result is the best movie experience i’ve had in 2010.

i am partially in love

trailers can sometimes tell the story better than the movie itself. in I AM LOVE (io sono l'amore), director luca guadagnino gets lost in beautiful cinematography instead of remembering his self-helmed story.

reasons to watch: tilda swinton's performance, a riveting original score, retro titles, arthouse film sequences, cinematic beauty. reasons not to: random turn of events in the final act, boredom due to lack of direction.

the video below holds all the keys to understanding the movie, many of which you forget because it's just so long. but honestly, this trailer packs the punch.