2006

Archived Posts from this Category

July 10, 2009

Days of Glory (Indigènes)

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, action, drama, entertainment, foreign, historical, movies, trailers, war | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Indig-film

Directed by French-Algerian Rachid Bouchareb, Days of Glory is an exciting, action-packed war movie that many will consider akin to Saving Private Ryan or other combat adventure pictures. But there’s a difference here, as Bouchareb’s heroes are couched in a sense of historical injustice that has continued on into modern day France.

Days of Glory was the Algerian nominee for the Best Foreign Language Oscar and won an acting ensemble award at Cannes. It is a powerful, well-acted movie that tells a distinctive, easy-to-follow ensemble story. Bouchareb does well to shoot the performers and the settings, drawing the viewer in with a realistic but not overly bloody portrayal of World War II and the North African soldiers who fought on the side of the French.

The French title for the picture, Indigènes, is a term for the hundreds of thousands of colonial African soldiers who fought for the French in the War. They were Algerians, Tunisians, and Moroccan natives and many were Muslims. Enrolled in the French First Army of the Free French Forces, these men were tasked with liberating the motherland after Nazi occupation. The film chronicles the formation of the crew and highlights many of the campaigns they fought through Italy and France.

In an ensemble picture such as this, there’s no single plotline that springs to the foreground. Instead we experience this group of men as they should be. We are transported into their world and we experience the sights and sounds they experience. The performers bring the characters to life skilfully and passionately.

Among the characters are Saïd Otmari (Jamel Debbouze), an illiterate peasant with rough edges, Sgt. Martinez (Bernard Blancan), a straightforward leader-type who enlists Saïd as a sort of personal assistant, marksman Messaoud (Roschdy Zem), a man who considers himself unlucky until he meets a French girl (Aurélie Eltvedt), and Abdelkader (Sami Bouajila), a natural leader and intellectual who unofficially leads the group. Brothers Yassir (Samy Naceri) and Larbi (Asaad Bouab) steal from corpses and have joined the army to make money.

The story is unique in that it features characters fighting for a France that they have not experienced. They are fighting for a land that they perhaps will never go to, except on missions of liberation, and they are fighting for a people that likely consider them to be second-class human beings. The grungy treatment of the men is highlighted by a particularly powerful scene involving tomatoes and a small rebellion with the aim of treating all men equal.

The film closes informing us that injustice from the War continues on in the lives of the surviving North Africans. It tells us of the decolonization of Africa and how the French government froze pensions and benefits for the wounded for those soldiers who fought on their behalf in World War II from colonies. This occurred in 1959 as the countries began to win their independence. Former French President Jacques Chirac saw Days of Glory in 2006 and abruptly changed the policy to ensure that the pensions were paid.

Days of Glory is an important picture. The resulting justice drawn from the picture is hard to ignore, of course, and Bouchareb’s skill for shooting the piece is well worth a look. The performances are good without overshadowing the subject matter or showing off and the sense of adventure and danger are very real. For a slightly different take on the ensemble war adventure film, check out Days of Glory (Indigènes).

8.6/10

Trailer:

 

May 6, 2009

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, action, adventure, entertainment, fantasy, movies, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |
1 Comment 

pirates_of_the_caribbean_2_poster_b

Confusing, muddled, and overly long, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest somehow still manages to be a touch better than its predecessor and quite a bit of fun. Gore Verbinski continues Disney’s saga based on a theme park ride, doubling up on the effects and high seas adventure found in 2003’s Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Let’s be clear: the Pirates film franchise is one born out of Disney executive marketing, a theme park ride, and blockbuster action with effects. It really has no business being the least bit artistic, even down to Johnny Depp’s fun but overrated portrayal of Captain Jack Sparrow. This is a film franchise couched in marketing opportunities and loud, flashy stuff. The potential for fun is high, but at the end of the day Verbinski’s little series is quite meaningless.

Dead Man’s Chest was shot back-to-back with the third film in the franchise during 2005 and faced a 2006 theatrical release. The Pirates franchise certainly lacks the meticulousness and slow building drama of Jackson’s Lord of the Rings saga, of course, but it’s hard to reach such heights when there are so many limitations in the way. For one thing, Pirates doesn’t have much story to speak of. Plots seem carved up in boardrooms with the goal of effects-driven sequences in mind. Ideas came first, with storylines sculpted as loose structures to prop up the CGI and make-up segments.

With a structure designed exclusively to look and feel good based on market research, the Pirates franchise is a lot like a Big Mac. Happily, Dead Man’s Chest succeeds reasonably well at its task but remains ultimately unsatisfying. And, like a Big Mac, some things about Dead Man’s Chest are simply better left in mystery. There’s not much sense in asking about various plot holes or confounding sequences, just as there’s no much sense in asking about seemingly superfluous scenes or meaningless overtures.

Depp is back as Captain Jack Sparrow, of course, and that again is probably the best and most overrated thing about these franchises. We find Sparrow in the middle of the action, as per usual. The East India Trading Company has arrived in Jamaica and wants to extend its monopoly, purging piracy from its waters. Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) has shown up to lead the charge for the company and he wants to have Captain Jack Sparrow arrested and recruited to join as a privateer. He also wants Davy Jones’ heart, which will grant him dominion over the seas.

Beckett has arrested Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), threatening to execute them. He offers clemency, however, if Will agrees to help bring in Sparrow and his magic compass. Will agrees and heads off on an adventure that leads him to a cannibal-infested island, his father, and the Black Pearl. There is also Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) to contend with, as Sparrow owes him a blood debt.

As with The Curse of the Black Pearl, Dead Man’s Chest could use a heavier hand in the editing room. There are a few sequences that could have been smashed down or refocused entirely to give the film a much less convoluted flow. Some of the effects are impressive, but this really is C-grade stuff and it feels quite rushed. There are some shots of the monstrous Kraken, for instance, that just look embarrassing.

The character/creature of Davy Jones is decent enough, though. Nighy wore a motion capture suit to get the part down and, while it doesn’t always look seamless or crisp, his character is the best effects-based creation in the entire film and perhaps the series. Still, the lacklustre effects had me thinking twice about Industrial Light and Magic. The effects from Indy 4, also by ILM, were similarly underwhelming.

Verbinski does manage to pull together a relatively fun little piece of escapism despite some obvious glaring problems, however, and the second film in the Pirates franchise winds up being considerably entertaining once it all finally gets going. Like the first picture, Dead Man’s Chest would have benefited by being about an hour shorter. But it is, in many ways, a superior film to The Curse of the Black Pearl and leaves a lot waiting to be answered in the third movie.

6.3/10

Trailer:

 

March 21, 2009

Little Children

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, drama, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

little-children

One of the great gifts of the cinema is that of a fearless assessment of human motivations. Great films can cause us to wonder about civilization, about the constructs of our genus and about why we build the lives we build. In 2006, Little Children was tasked with this notion. Based on the novel of the same name by Tom Perrotta, Todd Field’s movie pitilessly examines the shadowy slivers of suburbia.

In many ways, Little Children is a piece of satire. Its target is yuppie routine: that of affairs and gossip. To further his point, Field has included a narrator (Will Lyman). Little Children shares a considerable amount of thematic content with American Beauty and similar films. There is the view of perversity, for instance, lurking beneath the white picket fence exterior. There is the “wrong” relationship. And there is the “right” relationship.

Sarah Pierce (Kate Winslet) is a disinclined homemaker floating coldly through life in an upper-middle class neighbourhood in Boston. She is a former feminist and academic, but she has settled for a rather dull existence and ostensibly succumbed to the romanticism that normalcy brings. Sarah feels as though she has no purpose and views her daughter, Lucy (Sadie Goldstein), as an “unknowable little person.” Lucy is a suburban ornament, crated around to parks and pools in an effort to join the amorphous pack.

Sarah’s relationship with her husband, Richard (Gregg Edelman), is odd. They rarely communicate. He has taken to masturbating to an online porn site with panties on his head. Empty and unhappy as her life is, Sarah becomes durable through the vitality of the little victories. She smiles after making witty remarks to the Stepford-esque wives in the park. She gets a charge out of asking for a hug from the cute stay-at-home dad, Brad (Patrick Wilson).

Brad is the talk of the suburbs because of his emasculated function. His wife (Jennifer Connelly) is a documentary filmmaker. Upon meeting Sarah, Brad also discovers a “charge” and the two become playful. The flirtation accelerates with the unremitting strain of time and soon the two are engaged in a fiery affair.

Also in the mix is Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley), a sex offender. He lives with his mother (Phillis Somerville). Larry (Noah Emmerich), a former cop, has made it his mission to ensure that Ronnie’s stay in the neighbourhood is less than cosy. He pesters him regularly, displacing his own failings on the sex offender.

How these stories entwine and why they have value in relation to one another is something I’ll leave to the viewer. Every character matters in Field’s grand motion picture and each one is so deftly drawn as to be appalling and wholly significant all at once. To be sure, the little children of which the title speaks are not the accessories these people lug from place to place. Instead, the immaturity and illogicality lies with the “adults.”

The performances are impeccable, led by the greatest single actress of our generation in Kate Winslet. Her ability to transform herself into the normalcy of suburbia is awe-inspiring. As she pushes her daughter on the swings in mandatory “mom” overalls, for instance, Winslet purely lives the part. The other players are also fantastic, especially Haley. I have not had the pleasure of seeing him before (that I recall) and I assure you he is an absolute delight.

Little Children is a tremendous motion picture, sparkling with piercing satire and sweltering sexuality. There are freaks of some sort behind every door in this suburban hellhole and Field’s summons to this outlandish earth should be accepted cheerfully by anyone interested in modern cinema at its finest.

9.7/10

Trailer:

 

February 5, 2009

Saw III

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, crime, entertainment, horror, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

saw-3

Jigsaw’s late October moralizing continues with 2007’s Saw III, directed by Saw II director Darren Lynn Bousman. Bousman continually insists that the Saw movies and others like it aren’t made for “mainstream critics,” adding that Saw audiences know and love what they’re going to get. Certainly there’s a case to be made for that, especially if tacky acting, dizzying camerawork, and childish plot strings comprise what the primarily male fans of this increasingly ridiculous series love to see.

That said, Saw III is a fair shade better than Saw II (not like that’s hard). In my continued insistence on subjecting myself to cinematic punishment, I took in the third instalment of the series with low expectations after the bland and tasteless 2006 forerunner. Astoundingly, Saw III did the trick in the gore column (finally) and provided some reasonably squirm-worthy moments. I actually had to turn away at one point, which pleased me deeply in my expedition for gruesome material.

The film opens right where we left off in the second entry. Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) is stuck in the bathroom. He has a smashing plan to escape his predicament, however, and we’re off and running on the right foot for the time being. The flashback-heavy narrative takes us to about six months after the capture of Mathews. We get in touch with the same crew of cops from Saw II as they’re investigating Jigsaw’s latest crime. There’s a difference this time, though, as the cops discover that this latest trap was inescapable. Hmm.

We’re then transferred to Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his partner in gore, Amanda (Shawnee Smith), as they begin to set up their next series of games. This time, a skilled doctor (Bahar Soomekh) and a father (Angus Macfadyen) obsessed with revenge against the drunk driver who killed his son are the targets. Jigsaw wants the doctor to help keep him alive while the father runs around completing various gory tests. If Jigsaw dies or the father fails, the doctor loses her head.

All of the elements that helped create such a shaky and stupid experience in Saw II are sorrowfully present in the third movie. Bousman’s work with cinematographer David A. Armstrong once again resembles a music video, with sound effects-laden cutaways providing some incredibly dumb shots. Bousman and Co. use echoes, edits, and other tricks of the trade to create “atmosphere,” but the layered screams and cries of various characters just come across as silly once they’ve been layered on top of one another. It seems that Bousman is either clueless in terms of suspense or deliberately sabotaging the film’s potential for thrills.

The performances are basically bizarre. Once again, the Saw series employs a cast of hams (no, not the liquefied ones) to help guide this ship through to its destination. Reactions are silly, with characters coming across as blathering idiots. While Bell’s Jigsaw remains the picture of calm, cold villainy, the other characters turn up the volume around him and become ludicrous in their attempts to outdo their competition. Soomekh’s facial reactions and daft fits of “emotion” are among the most over-baked in the movie, while Macfadyen doesn’t help matters with his trouble in finding safe ground between featureless and stupid.

Luckily, Bousman’s Saw III does exceed its predecessor in the gore department and this wins the movie some points. The disaster of Saw II was that it remained an extremely mind-numbing exercise and was extremely light on the bloodshed. This time around, Bousman features more than a fair share of gruesome sights. Best of all, a cringe-worthy ad hoc surgery sequence involving a power drill and, of course, a saw highlights the blood-spattered righteousness.

And so it is, Saw III is an unconditional crapfest when one looks at the bigger picture of cinema. While I am proud, somewhat, of my endurance in watching both Saw II and Saw III in relatively close succession and while I am also proud of my penchant to use the word crapfest, there’s really no reason to experience this tribulation of a picture. It is an entirely laughable episode for all of its dour bluster, one only salvaged by a pretty sweet look inside the head of the one and only Jigsaw.

1.9/10

Trailer:

 

November 14, 2008

Manhattan, Kansas

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, documentaries, drama, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , |
[2] Comments 

manhattan-kansas

“This is my movie. She is my subject,” filmmaker Tara Wray reassures herself as she heads to reconnect with her mother. She prepares herself to concurrently distance herself and pull herself deeper into the difficult, gripping character that is her mom Evie. In the beautiful documentary Manhattan, Kansas, 25-year-old Wray wrestles with family, absolution, and herself in unprotected, helpless fashion.

Evie suffered a psychotic breakdown and lives under the weight of an untold, unknown mental illness. Tara distanced herself from her mother, heading to New York City and starting a life of her own while trying to place her mother and the abuses of her past life in the rear-view mirror. With instances of resentment and horror coating the lining of Tara’s upbringing, one can hardly blame her for fleeing her demons.

With her documentary piece, Wray confronts her demons and makes an effort to help her mother face her own. But the path is far from straight and the road is far from painless. Both mother and daughter struggle under the burden of their lives and regrets, yet both mirror the same vigour and tenacity. Evie rambles and struggles to determine a purpose for her daughter’s documentary, while Wray struggles to keep the camera on and keep her emotional space. In many ways, we are witnessing a tug-of-war.

Tara frequently battles her own sense of good will and concern. She is trying not to get hurt again by her mother but also strives to understand her, wishing for calm and a better life for the homeless, meandering Evie. Tara’s mother is attempting to make a career for herself as an abstract artist, selling “$25,000 art for 30 cents.” She is also the recipient of various “assignments,” which appear to come into her head at ostensibly haphazard intervals. When Tara arrives back in her mother’s life, Evie is working on finding the Geodetic Center of the United States.

Tara elects to help her mother find the Geodetic Center, which is located in Lebanon, Kansas. Upon taking her mother there to realize her mission, Tara learns that Evie believes that world peace and prosperity will come as the consequence of her finding the spot. Evie is overwhelmed for the moment, but quickly moves on to preparing for the next “assignment.” World peace doesn’t occur, but a chain of events is set in motion in Evie’s life that eventually does bring some resemblance of harmony.

Manhattan, Kansas is a tough film to watch. At once voyeuristic and adoring, we are often left with the feeling that we shouldn’t be seeing this. We shouldn’t be seeing Tara cursing at her mother from afar and tearing at the grass in a field. We shouldn’t be seeing the private conversations of this family. And we shouldn’t be seeing Evie in the shape she’s in. Is it exploitative? I’m not so sure. In many ways, Wray’s documentary is a form of healing and in many other ways it is a film of investigation. I’m reminded of a lyric from a Stereophonics song: “You gotta go there to come back.”

And Tara Wray does indeed go there to come back. Reading the liner notes of the DVD, which functions as a sort of post-film diary or stream of consciousness from Tara, it is revealed that the filmmaker struggled with alcohol during the making of Manhattan, Kansas. It is a compelling aspect to note, as Tara’s struggles with her mother are augmented by the evident struggles she has inside.

Manhattan, Kansas is a complicated piece. It is affectionate and angry, heart-rending and raw, delicate and distanced. Tara Wray’s documentary is a movingly special piece of filmmaking and it deserves to be seen. It is potent in ways that only the most reflective personal stories can be. For all of her flaws and all of her own shortcomings, I have nothing but the ultimate respect for this young filmmaker and her determined, boundlessly genuine project.

8.1/10

Trailer:

 

October 25, 2008

Night of the Living Dead 3D

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, action, entertainment, horror, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

George A. Romero’s classic Night of the Living Dead from 1968 really set the wheels in motion for the zombie movie genre. Made on a shoestring budget of $114,000, it was not the first zombie movie ever made but it was certainly the one that solidified the genre of “zombie apocalypse.” With its notions of the world coming to an end via zombies and its sense of despair, the original Night of the Living Dead was a terrifying vision from Romero. Unfortunately, his terrifying vision was never properly protected by copyrights and the barn door was left open, sometimes literally, for remakes.

One such remake took place with George A. Romero’s blessing with a 1990 film directed by Tom Savini. Another such remake was from 2006 and featured no such blessing and no involvement from anyone affiliated with the original cast. Night of the Living Dead 3D was that film.

Naturally the big selling feature for Night of the Living Dead 3D is the 3D spectacle. My wife and I were fortunate enough to watch the film with the 3D glasses that came with the Hannah Montana concert DVD set, which added an extra amount of fright to the experience. The movie, directed and produced by Jeff Broadstreet, has all of the glamour and glitz of a classic B-movie and even features the iconic Sid Haig just to bump up the credibility. Unfortunately, those expecting a reasonable homage or even a reasonable remake of Romero’s 1968 original are out of luck.

Brianna Brown stars as Barb and you had better not call her Barbara. She and her brother Johnny (Ken Ward) are late for the funeral of an aunt. As punishment for their tardiness, they are attacked by zombies and Johnny drives away to leave Barb to her fate at the hands of the undead. She manages to fight them off and is eventually rescued by Ben (Joshua DesRoches), a local college student. Ben takes Barb to a nearby farmhouse for safety. The inhabitants of the farmhouse, which is actually a marijuana farmhouse, don’t believe Barb at first.

When the zombies begin to attack, however, they have no choice. The mortician at the nearby funeral home, Gerald Tovar (Haig), arrives at the farmhouse to help out and explains how the zombies came to be. Gerald suggests that the zombies have come out of medical experiments that he had stored in his mortuary. Materials leaked into the embalming fluids and somehow the zombies were born. Good enough? Sure, why not. The remainder of the film is spent following Barb, Ben, and Gerald as they try to survive the evening.

All of the B-moving trappings are here: bad acting, bad direction, nudity, graphic violence, absolutely terrible special effects, poor makeup, and Sid Haig. Brianna Brown is actually decent as the lead and she handles the immensely corny lines with a grain of salt. She is good-looking, too, which never hurts. The violence is of the cutaway variety, often leaving more of the gruesome stuff off-camera or to the imagination, probably to save on the effects budget. There is a touch of nudity, too, as a sex scene in the barn adds some titillation.

Night of the Living Dead 3D isn’t a good movie by any means, however. Don’t let all of the gushing about B-movie trappings fool you, as this one has no business having anything to do with Romero’s classic. Indeed, it sullies the name of the original and even of the remake by a considerable margin. Adding the 3D carrot does nothing for it, either, as most of the animation and dimensional effects are simply poor.

It makes for a reasonably fun, campy night of laughs but won’t win any awards, hearts, or minds anytime soon. Avoid it if you take your zombies movies seriously, see it if you don’t.

2/10

Trailer:

 

May 12, 2008

V for Vendetta

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, action, drama, entertainment, movies, thrillers, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

The Wachowski brothers have a history of working with themes of rebels working against a system of control. The Matrix trilogy worked with that theme by using rebels holding out against a planetary system of control, using consciousness and philosophy to press home its points. With V for Vendetta, the Wachowski brothers have the same chance to work with similar material and have constructed a screenplay out of Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s graphic novel that works fluidly and smartly.

V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue in his directorial debut. McTeigue served as an assistant director on the Matrix films, so he was acquainted with the Wachowski style and translated the material to the screen with efficiency and attention to detail. The results exist in the realm of graphic novel adaptation, political thriller, action movie, and dystopic drama. The film is more literary and less dominated by special effects, making it significantly different from most comic book/graphic novel movies.

There are extensive notes of interpretations when it comes to both the graphic novels and the film. The subject matter of V for Vendetta prompted many discussions about the state of the world, totalitarianism, anarchism, and various other political philosophies. People discussed the merits or lack of merits of the actions of the characters and debated the allegories of religious groups and governmental philosophies as relate to our current global climate. The graphic novels originated in 1982 and covered a dystopian future imagined in the U.K. from the 1980s and 1990s. As is readily apparent, the subject matter described by Moore and Lloyd is applicable in today’s world.

Hugo Weaving “stars” as V, the movie’s central character. Wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, V is a revolutionary trying to overthrow the government. That government, an extreme fascist political party called Norsefire in the graphic novel, runs Britain with an iron fist and visions of Orwell’s 1984 are instantly recalled by the curfews and pervasive single-channel media present. Evey (Natalie Portman) is a young woman whom V rescues from policemen who are about to rape her. V becomes enchanted with Evey and their relationship takes some twists and turns as V moves towards his goal and Evey struggles with her reactions to V’s violent revolution.

Instant comparisons can be made with The Phantom of the Opera and the character of V, especially as pertains to his relationship with Evey. Is V hiding something behind the mask? Is the mask symbolic or something? Does the mask hamper or harm V’s relationship with Evey? Both characters move through cavernous spaces, both control others through the use of thoughts and power, and both have a heart filled with a desire for revenge for past wrongs. The exploration of V’s political motives and how they relate to his heart of vengeance is compelling.

V for Vendetta works well because it is filled with a bevy of solid character actors. John Hurt plays the High Chancellor, Stephen Rea is the detective in pursuit of V, Stephen Fry is one of Evey’s colleagues, and Tim Pigott-Smith is an instrument of the dictator. The cast works well off of the presence of Weaving’s V, who is limited by his mask to one facial expression and uses one tone of voice throughout the film. It is the character of V, in fact, that is the least interesting from a cinematic standpoint.

Unlike most graphic novel compositions, V for Vendetta works in that it gives the viewer something else to do beyond watch the special effects and the fight sequences. There are ideas hard at work here and many questions to be asked. People will discuss the political motives of V long after the credits have rolled and the influences of our society on the plot and actions of such “terrorists” will be explored by intelligent audience members. Others will still have enough to marvel at, as the fight sequences and special effects that are in the film are dazzling.

V for Vendetta is a thought-provoking graphic novel adaptation that, like Sin City, is at its best when it creates a world all its own. The despair and hopelessness of Britain under fascist dictatorship is explored and the power of the people gives rise to action. Lovers of London architecture may be disappointed or oddly excited by the film’s brave finale and the build towards the “big moment” permeates the movie with a rising sense of duty and responsibility for the film’s characters. Everyone’s jobs become more important with the passing hours.

While Alan Moore has disowned the film, V for Vendetta is still a worthy adaptation of some very brave material. It is a visually pleasing film and the ideas presented within venture beyond normative comic book fare and into a realm inhabited by the free flow of thoughts and an open discussion about how free we really are.

8.5/10

Trailer:

 

March 25, 2008

For Your Consideration

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, comedy, entertainment, movies, trailers | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

For Your Consideration

Christopher Guest directs For Your Consideration, his fourth mockumentary. The movie uses many of the same cast members from other Guest mockumentaries, including Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge, Michael McKean, and others. Along with those performers, For Your Consideration stars Catherine O’Hara, Harry Shearer, and Parker Posey. Ricky Gervais is also featured. The dialogue is largely improvised, but the style of the mockumentary somewhat differs from Guest’s earlier films.

O’Hara stars as the aptly named Marilyn Hack, an actress who is best known for her role as a blind prostitute in a film from the 80s. She’s been in the industry for 30 years now and is working on a new film called Home for Purim. Her co-star is Victor Allen Miller (Shearer), an acting veteran best known for being a hot dog mascot for a line of kosher frankfurters. The pair is cast as the mother and father of a Jewish family in the 1940s. Parker Posey is a newcomer to acting and plays the pair’s daughter, who is coming home along with her lesbian girlfriend (Rachael Harris) to surprise her family. Christopher Moynihan is Brian Chubb, who plays the son in the family.

As the filming of Home for Purim continues, Oscar buzz begins through an online rumours website and the cast begins to act accordingly. First, the buzz surrounds Hack. It spreads, however, through to Posey’s character and to veteran Miller, causing some hilarious results. Each performer begins to obsess about the possibility of winning the award. The studio execs butt in and decide that the film must be marketed to a higher audience because of all of this buzz, so some changes are made and the film is renamed to the less-Jewish Home for Thanksgiving. The changes to the actors and to the makers of the film are explored as the award announcements loom.

For Your Consideration works so well because it has natural flow and comic energy to it. The film is funny simply because it must be, as the actors and host of performers are inherently funny. The timing is always quick, the dialogue is witty and smart, and the construction of the piece is lovingly detailed. Guest’s films tend to focus on the idea of entertainment, with Best In Show focusing on a dog show and A Mighty Wind focusing on a folk music concert reunion. These aspects of entertainment, as explored by Guest, often hold hilarious connotations. The Oscar buzz internalized in For Your Consideration may be the biggest aspect Guest has played with to date, as its connotations are remarkably impactful.

Guest knows that there is no subject on earth riper for satire and laughter than that of human vanity. What people do when they think they are being rewarded or when they believe they are the recipient of some form of extreme accolade is worthy of exploration by anyone with a nose for humour. That vision of someone falling off of their high horse into a puddle of mud is one of the most classic visuals of egotism, especially in the hyperactive world of Hollywood filmmaking. This is where Guest’s film works so smartly.

Guest and his company of performers know that there are essential and absurd truths about Hollywood mythologizing. The marketing process for a film, for instance, takes place long before the film has even wrapped. The process to sell the film takes place throughout production and ventures through post-production and, often, beyond. This process effects how the performers work on the film and creates a host of buzz-related problems. Guest keys in on the egotism here and plays up the absurd truth behind the hyperbolic marketing of many films, which flows through internet rumour sites as we speak, to produce divine comedy.  The notion that “somebody out there likes me, they really like me” is often enough to fuel ludicrous behaviour in the right (or wrong) hands.

All of the characters required to complete this comedy cycle are here: Eugene Levy is the worthless agent, Jennifer Coolidge is the clueless producer, Ed Begley Jr. is the stylist, Bob Balaban and Michael McKean are the writers, Jane Lynch and Fred Willard host a sort of “Access Hollywood” knock-off, and Guest himself is the director of Home for Purim. Such a cast should be enough to produce some anticipatory laughter amongst lovers of improvisational comedy.

For Your Consideration is extremely funny, but it also has tinges of sadness and disappointment that help bring things full circle. All of Guest’s characters have dignity to some degree, although some have it in large quantities than others and, in some, self-centredness seems transposed on their most human of qualities to an excessive degree. Nevertheless, Guest’s crew has constructed a loving and hilarious nod to filmmaking that is just incredibly entertaining throughout.

9/10

Trailer:

 

March 24, 2008

Miss Potter

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, biography, drama, entertainment, movies, romance, trailers | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Miss Potter

Chris Noonan (Stepping Out, Babe) directed Miss Potter, the 2006 biopic of children’s author and illustrator Beatrix Potter. The film combines elements from Potter’s life with animated sequences involving characters from her books. Miss Potter was scripted by Richard Maltby Jr. and was filmed in Cecil Court, Covent Garden, and the Isle of Man. The original release date of the film fluctuated several times as the Weinstein Company tried to give the little movie a chance to shine in a crowded awards season. Eventually, Miss Potter was released broadly in December of 2006.

Renee Zellweger stars as Beatrix Potter. The casting once again raised the ire of traditional snobs, as there were questions about an important figure in British literature being cast as an American. The situation mirrored the situation that occurred when Zellweger was cast in the Bridget Jones films. As with that case, the fears were unfounded and Zellweger does a wonderful job in the role. She even earned a Golden Globe nomination, her sixth, for her work in Miss Potter.

Noonan’s film follows Potter as a 30-something single woman living with her social-climbing parents. Her mother, Helen (Barbara Flynn), is exasperated at the idea that Beatrix has turned down all of her potential suitors thus far and looks to remain single without a care in the world. Beatrix has, instead, taken solace in the company of animals and nature. She has made friends with the animals and has involved herself in drawing and writing about them, like she has done since her childhood. Beatrix eventually succeeds in selling her drawings and writings as books and meets Norman Warne (Ewan McGregor). Beatrix and Norman fall in love and life begins to change for Beatrix as she comes into her own.

As usual with these types of biopics, there are those that fuss and fiddle with the idea of historical accuracy and those that enjoy the artist’s rendering of the life of the individual as a film. I fall strictly into the latter category. If I wanted a factual accounting of Beatrix Potter’s life, love, and background, I’d read a biographical book or do some independent study. Because I want to see Potter’s life come to a different sort of artistic realization, Miss Potter is all too suitable to fill that role. Noonan’s film might have muddled the publishing order of some of the books and likely took some liberties with some of the more romantic and dramatic notions of storytelling, but who cares? Noonan has crafted a softly textured little film with Miss Potter and it works to tell his version of the story.

Miss Potter aims to be uplifting and it works on that account. It is an affectionate little film that handles its sorrow with equal parts sweetness and ache. Noonan directs his performers with softness, allowing their range to work with the material to produce a mild film. It works well for families, as its soft tones and gently swaying pace make for a fairly non-obtrusive afternoon viewing. Sadly, Miss Potter is also generally forgettable. It doesn’t resound very well, there is little to no impact, and the performances are simply too unassuming to be memorable. What makes the film effective is also what limits the film’s effectiveness. I’m not sure what could have been done differently, as everything about it seems right. It just doesn’t seem unforgettable.

Zellweger is good here, as she produces a vision of Beatrix Potter that is fragile and determined. Her performance is good and likely deserved the Golden Globe nod, but again there is little to do with range or timing here. Instead, it’s a gentle voyage that stays in one gear throughout. Her chemistry with McGregor is amiable and sweet, too, working with the tempo of the film to keep things balanced. The performances give the whole movie a whimsical feel, which is ideal for a family film of this nature. The villainy of the nagging mother is never too overcooked with Flynn’s performance and the supporting roles nicely blend into the background.

Miss Potter looks great and its cinematography sets it apart from the gentle pathos and romance of Noonan’s pacing. Its lush backdrops and beautiful wide shots of the farming lands and rolling hills really bring home what the region must have looked like through Potter’s eyes. This sort of living tribute is magical in some ways and gives the film the life it seemed to have been looking for.

It’s a mild film that glows with soft hues and warm lights, giving way to a calm story about a tender woman whose gentle characters likely lulled many of us to sleep.  In that way, Miss Potter works in the same way of her characters and her world. Noonan’s film may lack the effectiveness to be ultimately memorable to those with no interest in Beatrix Potter’s world, but for those who find themselves enchanted by Peter Rabbit and her host of animal friends, Miss Potter will likely do just fine.

7/10

Trailer:

 

March 24, 2008

Away From Her

Posted by Jordan Richardson under 2006, drama, entertainment, movies, romance, trailers | Tags: , , , , , |
Leave a Comment 

Away From Her

Sarah Polley wrote and directed Away From Her, the Genie Award-winning Canadian film which debuted at the 2006 Toronto International Film Festival. The movie is based on a short story by Alice Munro entitled The Bear Came Over the Mountain. Shot in Hamilton, Ontario, Away From Her picked up an Oscar nomination for the film’s star, the wonderful Julie Christie. The picture was also greeted with enthusiasm from critics, as the greatly positive reviews ranked it among the best films of the year (2007, according to its broader release date) on many top lists. Roger Ebert had the film ranked as his sixth best of the year and Dana Stevens from Slate ranked it as the second best.

Away From Her stars Canadian actor Gordon Pinsent as Grant. Grant is married to Fiona (Julie Christie). Grant and Fiona have been married for over 44 years and have grown old together. They are very much in love and this is evidenced in the way the couple live with one another. Grant has never been away from Fiona for even one day. As time passes, Fiona begins to lose her memory and it becomes sadly obvious that she is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Fiona and Grant have a very intelligent approach to life and this approach leads Fiona to be admitted to a nursing home before her symptoms get much worse.

One of the rules at the nursing home pertains to a so-called adjustment period in which the newly admitted patient must not have any visitors for 30 days in order to adjust to his or her new surroundings. Grant loathes the rule, but Fiona insists that it will be okay and admits herself to the nursing home. When the 30 day period is over, Grant eagerly visits the home and Fiona. To his distress, he discovers that she has all but forgotten him and has turned her affections to Aubrey (Michael Murphy), a mute cripple. Grant continues to visit Fiona, despite her lack of understanding as to his role and her attachment to Aubrey. As time passes, Grant must make a choice between his wife’s happiness and the traditional roles of marriage.

Away From Her is an incredibly moving film. Its power lies in the strong performances from Christie and Pinsent, the latter of which also deserved an Oscar nomination for his heart-rending portrayal of a man on his own suffering with the realities of his wife’s condition and his immense love for her. Christie is excellent and all of the buzz about her performance in the film is dead on. She acts with control and precision, limiting herself and straying from the standard “tug at the heartstrings” stuff of movie mythology. Instead, her portrayal of Fiona and her suffering with losing her memory, her mind, and her love is very poignant and real.

Polley’s direction is impeccable. Polley has directed some shorts and a small bit of television before, but she is primarily thought of as an actress. Still young at just 29, one can expect great things from her. Polley’s direction is simplistic and sets her film up in bright focus, using the winter and the crunch of the snow as an elegant backdrop. The strong sunlight infuses almost every frame, as characters walk down halls through the nursing home or through the snow near Fiona and Grant’s cottage. I can’t recall a single night-time scene in the film, which is a purposeful approach that strays away from the common notion of setting such a dismal tale in darkness.

Away From Her tackles Alzheimer’s disease and aging with a grace that is rarely seen. While other films tackle the condition and draw it in as a part of a greater story, as in the romance of The Notebook, Polley’s film functions as an observation of the condition and a broader look at the human condition. It looks boldly and clearly at the fallout of Alzheimer’s and of the aging process. It looks at the suffering involved with putting a loved one in a nursing home, examining carefully the distance and the confusion that is so often involved with aging and life’s decisions.

The pain here comes from the fact that death almost seems to be merciful in the case of Fiona and Grant. With no memory of her love for Grant, Fiona still seems happy and still seems well-adjusted to her new existence in the nursing home. Here, it is Grant who really suffers. In the “outside world,” it is Grant who is “away from her” and Grant who doesn’t know what to do. It is Grant who needs mercy and it is Grant who must watch idly as his wife moves on with her life. Is she getting some form of revenge for past transgressions? Is it all a game? The questions wrack his mind, drive him insane, and fill him with fear and remorse.

Away From Her is a film that resonates with gentleness, compassion, and admiration for its characters and for the sufferers of Alzheimer’s and general adventurers on the road of age. It treats the elderly and those with memory loss with respect instead of reducing their condition to a sideshow or a caustic backdrop. With Polley’s incredibly moving and heartbreaking film, the characters matter and their existence is looked upon with affection, sorrow, and a small glimmer of weakening hope.

10/10

Trailer:

 

Next Page »