There are people who find it odd that I usually don’t read novels. Oh sure, I’ve read A Tale of Two Cities, and A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court, but contemporary fiction I mostly give a miss. The film “Atonement” is a perfect example of why I’ve made that choice.
If I watch a crappy, pretentious movie I’m out two hours of my life that I’ll never get back. If I read a crappy, pretentious novel, I’m out many more hours that I’ll never get back. That said, my guess is that “Atonement” is a better book than it is a movie. But that’s still not saying much.
The story is more or less told from the point of view of Briony (Saoirse Ronan), an imaginative, wealthy, somewhat spoiled child of an English Country Manor. She misinterprets an innocent encounter she sees in a garden between her older sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) the favored son of one of the kitchen staff. Briony builds that, a mistakenly presented draft of an apology, and another incident into a charge that sends Robbie away from the house and off to prison.
With the coming of World War II Robbie winds up in the army at Dunkirk. Cecilia is a nurse caring for wounded soldiers and Briony (now 18 and played by Romola Garai) eventually in nurses’ training. Oh, and Briony is played by a third actress, Vanessa Redgrave, much later in her life. You wouldn’t think it would take three women to play one character but without the latter two we wouldn’t understand that Briony came to understand the need to make an atonement.
If you like the same scene being played more than once to get the perspective of different characters, non-linear time shifting and half spoken sentences weighty with unspoken emotion, this movie is your cup of English Tea served to you in a country garden. If you’re really into non-linear time shifting and a scene being played more than once, rent Christopher Nolan’s 2000 film “Memento” and you’ll see all you need to of that.
There’s a five minute tracking shot of Robbie when he and two army pals arrive at Dunkirk. Robbie walks through the tumult and turmoil in the time of the British evacuation. Director (Joe Wright) is extremely proud of the scene. It may be very cinematic but it’s pretty pointless in the context of the film. All that matters to the audience is that Robbie is at Dunkirk… and I’m not sure that couldn’t have been covered adequately in a line or two of expository dialog by another character.
So what’s to like? The actors all do a good job. Dario Marianelli blends the frequent presence of typewriters into a basis for a rhythm riff that cues the score in an interesting way. There were also a couple of occasions where a character does something on screen that becomes the last note in a score cue that I liked.
All in all what we have here is someone way too conscious that he is making a film rather than someone who is trying to tell a story well on film.
This is the director who made a version of “Pride and Prejudice” and was very proud of having done so without reading Jane Austen’s book. He claims that he read Ian McEwan’s book Atonement. I’m not sure which, if either, author got the greater benefit from Mr. Wright’s talent.
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label entertainment. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Leatherheads (PG-13)
What I know about pro football circa 1925 you could fit on the back of the “Press” card stuck in the band of your snap-brim fedora. In other words, not much. But you don’t have to know much to go along for the pleasant ride that is “Leatherheads.”
George Clooney is “Dodge” Connelly, a dodgy character of an aging pro who just loves to play football even as a pro. You see, in 1925 pro-football was a joke to real fans, the press and, to some extent, the players. The teams were constantly running out of money and folding, the schedule was adjusted almost daily because the team you were supposed to play went out of business and you may not have had the money for railroad tickets to get to the next game anyway. College football was the thing and Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) was THE star of college football. And not just a football star, a hero of the recently concluded “Great War.”
Dodge finds a way to entice Rutherford’s agent C.C. Frazier (Jonathan Pryce) to agree to have Rutherford turn pro. That way, of course, is money. Dodge pretty much gives away the store to get the War Hero/Star into the pros but he sees that Rutherford can give his league instant credibility. There is one problem: Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger).
She’s the best writer on the Tribune and she’s out the find out what really happened in the Argonne Forest when Carter Rutherford became a war hero. Suffice it to say there is a story behind the story and the hero is not quite what he’s billed as, but there’s no real chicanery afoot. Lexie winds up being the center of the attentions of both Dodge and Carter.
This is the kind of movie where Carter and Dodge fight over the girl for quite a while and when they’re done neither man has a mark on him. But logic has little place here and you just stipulate to certain facts that may only sort of make sense. Like Lexie getting the chance to write this kind of sports story in Chicago of the 1920s. It’s far more likely that a woman, no matter how good a writer, would be spinning her wheels writing recipes or society pieces for the Trib, not revelatory stories about sports heroes.
There’s also the question of Renee Zellweger as Lexie. Never a conventionally pretty girl, Renee is 40 now and it’s tough for her to pass for the age of 31 that Lexie admits to. As an actress she always seems to be trying a little too hard to me. But that may just be my problem; it needn’t be yours.
Some terrific character actors back up the main cast and they do a great job of filling out the background. Peter Gerety does a nice turn as the man who becomes commissioner of the league and while it’s never stated that this is the early N-F-L, it’s obvious that the commissioner is going to start the enterprise down the road to being the No Fun League we know today.
There’s some snappy screwball comedy dialog and another jazz-age evoking score by Randy Newman who also gets a cameo as (what else?) the piano player in a speakeasy. At two hours it could have been a bit shorter although there are a couple of the deletes scenes on the dvd that I thought should have made the cut.
“Leatherheads” is certainly worth the rental and if you buy dvd’s or blue ray discs this would be a fun addition to your library.
George Clooney is “Dodge” Connelly, a dodgy character of an aging pro who just loves to play football even as a pro. You see, in 1925 pro-football was a joke to real fans, the press and, to some extent, the players. The teams were constantly running out of money and folding, the schedule was adjusted almost daily because the team you were supposed to play went out of business and you may not have had the money for railroad tickets to get to the next game anyway. College football was the thing and Carter Rutherford (John Krasinski) was THE star of college football. And not just a football star, a hero of the recently concluded “Great War.”
Dodge finds a way to entice Rutherford’s agent C.C. Frazier (Jonathan Pryce) to agree to have Rutherford turn pro. That way, of course, is money. Dodge pretty much gives away the store to get the War Hero/Star into the pros but he sees that Rutherford can give his league instant credibility. There is one problem: Lexie Littleton (Renee Zellweger).
She’s the best writer on the Tribune and she’s out the find out what really happened in the Argonne Forest when Carter Rutherford became a war hero. Suffice it to say there is a story behind the story and the hero is not quite what he’s billed as, but there’s no real chicanery afoot. Lexie winds up being the center of the attentions of both Dodge and Carter.
This is the kind of movie where Carter and Dodge fight over the girl for quite a while and when they’re done neither man has a mark on him. But logic has little place here and you just stipulate to certain facts that may only sort of make sense. Like Lexie getting the chance to write this kind of sports story in Chicago of the 1920s. It’s far more likely that a woman, no matter how good a writer, would be spinning her wheels writing recipes or society pieces for the Trib, not revelatory stories about sports heroes.
There’s also the question of Renee Zellweger as Lexie. Never a conventionally pretty girl, Renee is 40 now and it’s tough for her to pass for the age of 31 that Lexie admits to. As an actress she always seems to be trying a little too hard to me. But that may just be my problem; it needn’t be yours.
Some terrific character actors back up the main cast and they do a great job of filling out the background. Peter Gerety does a nice turn as the man who becomes commissioner of the league and while it’s never stated that this is the early N-F-L, it’s obvious that the commissioner is going to start the enterprise down the road to being the No Fun League we know today.
There’s some snappy screwball comedy dialog and another jazz-age evoking score by Randy Newman who also gets a cameo as (what else?) the piano player in a speakeasy. At two hours it could have been a bit shorter although there are a couple of the deletes scenes on the dvd that I thought should have made the cut.
“Leatherheads” is certainly worth the rental and if you buy dvd’s or blue ray discs this would be a fun addition to your library.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Doubt (Rated PG-13)
Once we get past the opening credits we have Father Brendan Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) delivering a sermon. He starts by saying, “What do you do when you’re not sure?” And that, for most of us, is the central question of the film. The exception is Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) a woman who sees no grey in the world, only black and white.
“Doubt” is set in 1964 and, in terms of the narrative, the question is: did Father Flynn abuse the only black student in a Roman Catholic school? If you’re the kind of person who likes everything in a movie divided up into neat little piles at the end you’ll want to give this one a miss.
If, like me, you’re interested in the discussion of moral questions, trying to understand the grey areas and how best to determine when we’ve moved from white to black on the ethical scale, then you’ll find this film a very interesting dialog.
The way it plays out is a lot like getting an eye exam. When the ophthalmologist starts adjusting the lenses and asks, “which is clearer, A or B?” The story (written originally as a play then adapted for the screen – all done by the film’s director John Patrick Shanley) lays out facts and says, “Okay, what do you think?” Then it tells you something else and says, “Now what do you think?”
There were only four characters in the play, the film has more but the four central characters, Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius, Sister James (Amy Adams) and the mother of the child in question Mrs. Miller (Viola Davis). All the actors give excellent performances. Adams’ Sister James is charming and totally innocent, but it is she who notices what might be an inappropriate relationship. Davis’ character is strangely disinterested in taking action when the question of the relationship is brought before her.
Sister Aloysius is pursuing the matter, but is it because she dislikes the priest for his informal and warm approach to his job? She’s a woman so strict, so severe, that she finds “Frosty the Snowman” to be heretical. No, she’s not kidding. Severe? You could keep meat fresh in the ventricles of this woman’s heart.
Father Flynn is engaging and charming. Is that part of the con that an abuser would perpetrate to get away with what he does?
The film probably functions as a Rorschach test for the audience. Most of us will probably determine the question by falling back on the biases we walked in with. Me? My job is to tell you what the movie is about and whether I think it’s worth seeing. I think I’ve done the first and the second, so I’ll leave you to watch the movie and decide for yourself, “What DO you do when you’re not sure?”
“Doubt” is set in 1964 and, in terms of the narrative, the question is: did Father Flynn abuse the only black student in a Roman Catholic school? If you’re the kind of person who likes everything in a movie divided up into neat little piles at the end you’ll want to give this one a miss.
If, like me, you’re interested in the discussion of moral questions, trying to understand the grey areas and how best to determine when we’ve moved from white to black on the ethical scale, then you’ll find this film a very interesting dialog.
The way it plays out is a lot like getting an eye exam. When the ophthalmologist starts adjusting the lenses and asks, “which is clearer, A or B?” The story (written originally as a play then adapted for the screen – all done by the film’s director John Patrick Shanley) lays out facts and says, “Okay, what do you think?” Then it tells you something else and says, “Now what do you think?”
There were only four characters in the play, the film has more but the four central characters, Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius, Sister James (Amy Adams) and the mother of the child in question Mrs. Miller (Viola Davis). All the actors give excellent performances. Adams’ Sister James is charming and totally innocent, but it is she who notices what might be an inappropriate relationship. Davis’ character is strangely disinterested in taking action when the question of the relationship is brought before her.
Sister Aloysius is pursuing the matter, but is it because she dislikes the priest for his informal and warm approach to his job? She’s a woman so strict, so severe, that she finds “Frosty the Snowman” to be heretical. No, she’s not kidding. Severe? You could keep meat fresh in the ventricles of this woman’s heart.
Father Flynn is engaging and charming. Is that part of the con that an abuser would perpetrate to get away with what he does?
The film probably functions as a Rorschach test for the audience. Most of us will probably determine the question by falling back on the biases we walked in with. Me? My job is to tell you what the movie is about and whether I think it’s worth seeing. I think I’ve done the first and the second, so I’ll leave you to watch the movie and decide for yourself, “What DO you do when you’re not sure?”
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Review: "Ghost Town"
Ghost Town (PG-13)
This is one we can sum up in one line: W.C. Fields meets Ebenezer Scrooge and hold the Holiday part. The tag line for the film is, “He sees dead people…and they annoy him.” And by the way, the living annoy him too.
Greg Kinnear is Frank our combination Jacob Marley/Ghost of Christmas Present. Frank’s been caught cheating on his wife but before he knows how much she knows, Frank catches a bus…or you could more accurately say the bus catches Frank. This is how we meet Frank’s ghost.
Ricky Gervais is a dentist named Bertram Pincus who chose his profession because, “90% of the people I come in contact with have cotton wool stuffed in their mouth.” Bertram also died, while having a colonoscopy or something equally enchanting, but for just under seven minutes. As a result, he sees dead people. Turns out New York, where the film is set, is lousy with ghosts who are there because of unfinished business. Suddenly Bertram can see them, hear them and, they hope, help them.
Frank’s ghost manages to get more or less exclusive access to Bertram so that he can torpedo the engagement of Frank’s widow Gwen (Tea Leoni). Bertram, once he notices Gwen, is quite taken with her although she plans to marry Richard (Bill Campbell) an attorney so righteous you want to him to lose the girl.
Although Gwen’s familiar with Bertram from his not holding elevators for her, stealing cabs she has hailed and generally being a Fieldsian misanthropic jerk, she does find that he makes her laugh and she likes that. But there’s lingering tension for a couple of reasons. One, first impressions (Bertram really is a jerk remember) never really go away. Two, Frank never really goes away either although Gwen doesn’t know he’s there.
The moment of Christmas Future comes from Bertram’s associate in the Dental Office. Dr. Prashar (Aasif Mandvi) tries to get along with Pincus because Prashar’s a nice guy but after exchanges like one where Bertram asks him, “How would you extract information from a hostile?” even the patient dentist from India loses patience. He advises Pincus, “…this business of being such a fucking prick, what is it getting [you].”
Gervais is a delightfully consistent cur and his eventual transformation does make sense in a way that Scrooge’s never did for me. Maybe because Tea Leoni is cuter than any of Dickens’s ghosts and Bertram’s desolate smallness is worth giving up for her. Greg Kinnear is charmingly and unapologetically smarmy. You can see where this particular brand of low-life would be appealing.
Co-writer and director David Koepp has some impressively varied screenplays to his credit but brought a nice touch with some interesting twists to a romantic comedy that really is a comedy without having to resort to slapstick. Maybe he should team up again with Ricky and remake Fields’s classic, “Mississippi.” He’d make an interesting Commodore Jackson.
This is one we can sum up in one line: W.C. Fields meets Ebenezer Scrooge and hold the Holiday part. The tag line for the film is, “He sees dead people…and they annoy him.” And by the way, the living annoy him too.
Greg Kinnear is Frank our combination Jacob Marley/Ghost of Christmas Present. Frank’s been caught cheating on his wife but before he knows how much she knows, Frank catches a bus…or you could more accurately say the bus catches Frank. This is how we meet Frank’s ghost.
Ricky Gervais is a dentist named Bertram Pincus who chose his profession because, “90% of the people I come in contact with have cotton wool stuffed in their mouth.” Bertram also died, while having a colonoscopy or something equally enchanting, but for just under seven minutes. As a result, he sees dead people. Turns out New York, where the film is set, is lousy with ghosts who are there because of unfinished business. Suddenly Bertram can see them, hear them and, they hope, help them.
Frank’s ghost manages to get more or less exclusive access to Bertram so that he can torpedo the engagement of Frank’s widow Gwen (Tea Leoni). Bertram, once he notices Gwen, is quite taken with her although she plans to marry Richard (Bill Campbell) an attorney so righteous you want to him to lose the girl.
Although Gwen’s familiar with Bertram from his not holding elevators for her, stealing cabs she has hailed and generally being a Fieldsian misanthropic jerk, she does find that he makes her laugh and she likes that. But there’s lingering tension for a couple of reasons. One, first impressions (Bertram really is a jerk remember) never really go away. Two, Frank never really goes away either although Gwen doesn’t know he’s there.
The moment of Christmas Future comes from Bertram’s associate in the Dental Office. Dr. Prashar (Aasif Mandvi) tries to get along with Pincus because Prashar’s a nice guy but after exchanges like one where Bertram asks him, “How would you extract information from a hostile?” even the patient dentist from India loses patience. He advises Pincus, “…this business of being such a fucking prick, what is it getting [you].”
Gervais is a delightfully consistent cur and his eventual transformation does make sense in a way that Scrooge’s never did for me. Maybe because Tea Leoni is cuter than any of Dickens’s ghosts and Bertram’s desolate smallness is worth giving up for her. Greg Kinnear is charmingly and unapologetically smarmy. You can see where this particular brand of low-life would be appealing.
Co-writer and director David Koepp has some impressively varied screenplays to his credit but brought a nice touch with some interesting twists to a romantic comedy that really is a comedy without having to resort to slapstick. Maybe he should team up again with Ricky and remake Fields’s classic, “Mississippi.” He’d make an interesting Commodore Jackson.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)