Review: To the Wonder

There were a lot of viewers who had a “the emperor has no clothes” attitude about Terrence Malick’s last film, The Tree of Life. I disagreed. Malick has gone back to the well for his latest film, To the Wonder, and this time the emperor is buck naked.

Malick, as with The Tree of Life, has teamed with his cinematographer, Emmanuel Luzbecki, to create a poem of images, and To the Wonder is a beautiful film, with several striking images. But the narrative, if you could consider it a narrative, is almost nonexistent, and I was bored and counting the minutes until it was over.

The plot, such as it is, can be summed in this sentence from Wikipedia. The writer should be congratulated for their succinct prose: “A romantic drama centered on an American man who reconnects with a woman
from his hometown after his relationship with a European woman falls
apart. The European woman later returns, but finally leaves again.”

I can add a bit to this. The man is Ben Affleck, who appears to be a representation of some sort of masculine ideal. We hardly ever see his face–I can only remember a few closeups, one of which highlighted his regal chin. We don’t hear him talk much, either. He has a job–he’s some sort of chemist investigating a toxic dump’s effect on local citizens, but this is not amplified upon.

Most of the film is about Olga Kurylenko. She is a Russian living in Paris (I’m surmising on a lot of this–nothing is spelled out) who is in love with Affleck. They enjoy touring the city, and making a visit to Mont St. Michel, and this all looks like a perfume commercial. He asks her to come back to the U.S. with him, along with her ten-year-old daughter.

That turns out to be the wide-open spaces of a small town in Oklahoma. Neither Kurylenko or her daughter are thrilled to be there, and it’s kind of a loaded situation–who would like small-town Oklahoma after living in Paris? Kurylenko leaves, and and Affleck takes up with a local girl (perhaps a previous girlfriend) Rachel McAdams. Again, we get perfume-commercial scenes, this time in the dusty Oklahoma sites. But they have a fight, and she’s gone from the movie, completely.

Kurylenko comes back, sans daughter, and she and Affleck marry. There’s some confusion over whether she has a child or not–I think she does–but things don’t work out. She has an affair, and there’s a striking scene in which she leaves the chain motel with guilt written all over her face.

I should add that all through this there are scenes involving Javier Bardem as the parish priest of the town. I’m not quite sure what he’s doing there, and most of his lines are voiced over in Spanish (Kurylenko also has numerous voiceovers, in French) and seem to indicate he’s not happy with things in general. I can’t say much more, because it’s absolutely incomprehensible.

Malick seems to have targeted the topic of romance, but I have no idea what he means to say. This is a movie that could we watched with the sound off, and perhaps should be.

The acting is mostly the kind that has the actors staring out windows while the narration runs on the soundtrack. I wonder what kind of direction the actors got–were they told what they should be thinking, or were they merely contemplating the banal like what they will have for lunch. Malick is obviously enthralled with how Kurylenko looks, and I’m on board with that, but she doesn’t have the kind of presence that makes up for the little she has to do. What she does most is frolic–either in the streets of Paris or her big backyard in Oklahoma. I think this movie has more frolicking that any movie I’ve ever seen.

To the Wonder is also notable for being the last movie reviewed by Roger Ebert before his death. He was generous and gave it three-and-a-half stars, noting the lack of narrative and giving Malick credit for approaching it that way. Fair enough, but if you’re going to make a movie like this there has to be a reason for watching it other than its poetic images.

My review for To the Wonder: D+

Oldboy remake poster in the wild

Cool poster for Spike Lee’s upcoming remake of Park Chan-Wook’s Oldboy (FilmDistrict, October 11th).   I’ve long wondered how they’re going to market this thing so it’s nice to get a taste.  Imagine a trailer should arrive in the next month or so.

(Via Collider)

Opening in New York, April 12, 2013

The biggest cultural event in New York this weekend is the opening of Matilda on Broadway–it got a rave from the Times. Movies? Not so much going on.

The major opening in wide release is 42 (63), the story of Jackie Robinson breaking the color line in baseball. This event can not be understated as a significant piece of the civil rights movement, and in American history overall. But the film seems to be getting “good, but could have been better” reviews, mostly because it’s a bit too hagiographical.

A. O. Scott writes: “Mr. Helgeland…has honorably sacrificed the chance to make a great movie in the interest of making one that is accessible and inspiring. Though not accurate in every particular, the movie mostly succeeds in respecting the facts of history and the personality of its hero, and in reminding audiences why he mattered.”

For cineastes, the big opening this week is Terrence Malick’s To the Wonder, (60) starring Ben Affleck, Olga Kurylenko, Rachel McAdams, and Javier Bardem (what an eclectic cast!)  He has made only six films, but sure knows how to build suspense for each one. This one is a romance. Scott writes: “To the Wonder” gestures toward the same kind of transcendence (as The Tree of Life) but falls short. This is partly because the human situation in the center of the film does not quite support its philosophical scaffolding and partly because the images, gorgeous as they are, do not in themselves possess the evocative power Mr. Malick intends them to have. He works in a shorthand that can sometimes feel facile rather than profound.”

Also in limited release is Disconnect (65), directed by Henry-Alex Rubin, with Jason Bateman and Hope Davis. It’s one of those omnibus movies, like Crash, Babel, and Short Cuts. Stephen Holden writes: “How the movie, directed by Henry-Alex Rubin (the documentary “Murderball”) from a screenplay by Andrew Stern, will be received probably depends on the age and digital sophistication of the viewer. Those proficient with Facebook, Twitter, Skype, webcams and smartphones may find “Disconnect” too obvious and blithely dismiss its alarmist attitude as fuddy-duddy.”

From the great British miserabilist, Ken Loach, comes The Angel’s Share (68), which is a comedy about the whisky trade. Holden writes: “Before it turns lighter and fizzier, “The Angels’ Share” offers a pungently realistic portrait of hopelessness and frustration, which explode in vicious street fighting and petty crime. It is difficult to transcend this world, where any attempts at upward mobility are likely to be thwarted by bitterly angry peers determined to make sure no one escapes.”

Finally, Scary Movie 5 (16) was wisely not screened for critics. I’m sure there are no surprises here, even the cameos by Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. I found this critique by a commenter on Metacritic to be insightful as to the target audience: “First of all I thought the movie was going to be lame but i really enjoyed it. It’s better than scary movie 2 but not as good as scary movie 3 or 1.” There you have it.

Opening in New York, April 5, 2013

I’m going to steal a bit of Nick’s innovations, but not all (no graphics, sorry). I’ll give a quote from a New York Times critic.

The most significant openings this week are limited releases, starting with Trance (61). Danny Boyle has had two best Oscar Best Picture nominees in a row, which makes him a director of some note, but I would think his streak ends here, with this thriller about hypnosis and stolen art. I’ll probably end up checking it out, if only for a full monty from Rosario Dawson (it was pointed out on this blog the likely reason for her getting the part).

Manohla Dargis writes: “there are times when it feels as if he’s throwing everything at the screen — the throbbing music, bleeding fingers, narrative U-turns and the startling sight of a naked Ms. Dawson striding toward the camera as strategically shorn as a Renaissance nude — less because he wants to distract you from the big reveal than to obscure the material’s thinness.”

Another Oscar-winning director has a film this week, his first in quite a while. Robert Redford directs and stars in The Company You Keep (56), about radicals from the ’60s hunted by the FBI. It has a good cast, co-starring Susan Sarandon and Julie Christie, but unfortunately also stars Shia LaBoeuf.

Stephen Holden writes: “Lem Dobbs’s clunky screenplay, adapted from Neil Gordon’s novel, maintains a scrupulously ethical balance in contemplating domestic terrorism, and the film gives the angriest of these left-wing radicals their say. If their rage has moderated, their basic feelings haven’t changed.”

Also in limited release are Upstream Color (78), directed by and starring Shane Carruth, which seems to defy description. Dargis writes: “In terms of the story, he also is a worm-wrangler cum kidnapper, referred to only as Thief, who, right out of a David Lynch nightmare, snatches a blonde, Kris (Amy Seimetz), one dark, stormy night and pumps worms down her throat. He never explains his actions, even after he takes Kris back to her house, where a copy of “Walden” waits for someone to enjoy.”

The Brass Teapot (39) is a Twilight Zone-like story, directed by Ramaa Mosley. It stars Juno Temple, who is a favorite of the Mr. Skin crowd. Nicolas Rapold writes: “A comic fable that squanders its twisted-fairy-tale concept, “The Brass Teapot” observes the insidious effects of greed on a young, broke couple. When Alice (Juno Temple) and John (Michael Angarano) acquire a teapot that spits out cash every time they hurt themselves, they leap into the good life through self-inflicted hard knocks but learn a valuable lesson when other people want their stuff.”

The only openings in wider release are a couple of horror films, which means I’ll be staying home this weekend.

6 Souls (27) is by a couple of Swedish directors and somehow stars Julianne Moore (certainly a TV series is next for her).  Rapold writes: “Beginning as a psychiatric freak show, “6 Souls” eventually trades serial-killer intimations for backwoods bad mojo before becoming just another dimly lighted pop-up-stalker flick.”

I suppose the weekend’s box office champion will be Evil Dead (58), a remake of the Sam Raimi film (I have not seen either of them–I understand Evil Dead 2 is something of a cult classic). Horror aficionados are giving this high marks, but I will wait and rent it, if only for the presence of Jane Levy, who activates my dirty old man meter.

Dargis writes: “The new “Evil Dead” has none of the first movie’s handmade charm or hilarity, intentional or otherwise. (It also lost its “The.”) The director, Fede Alvarez, approaches the creaky material with a surprisingly straight face and a fair amount of throat clearing.”

 

 

Things I should’ve watched… but haven’t

One of the things that astonishes me the most about cinema isn’t so much the films I have seen, but the films that I haven’t seen. Or, to be more precise, the amount of films that I have yet to see.

Even if one limits cinema to just the English-language aspect, there are thousands upon thousands of worthy films that I have yet to see, and most I will probably never get around to seeing. Even as someone who has been fascinated and devoted to cinema since a young age, it’s always felt I’ve never seen enough films as I should’ve. And now well into adulthood and with the responsibilities and requirements that entails, the time to watch films seems less than ever.

Despite all that, there are holes in my film-viewing experience that are inexplicable, even embarrassing. Not just individual films, but directors and genres that I’ve watched far less than I should’ve.

Now, seven years into this site, now is as good a time as any for us regular contributors to confess what parts of cinema we’re a bit embarrassed as to not have viewed as yet.

The one that stands out for me is that I’ve never actually watched a Danny Boyle directed film, something I only realised this week when I saw mention of his latest film ‘Trance’ within the media. It occurred to me that despite being a highly-acclaimed filmmaker for over 15 years, with early films like ‘Trainspotting’ having a major cultural impact and won international recognition and the Oscar for ‘Slumdog Millionaire’, I’ve never gotten around to seeing any of his work. It feels a bit embarrassing, not only as a long-time contributor to this movie blog but also because people who know me assume I’m a film buff, and yet haven’t seen a film of a director that most of the public have seen at least one of his films.

Until fairly recently and even more inexplicably, I had also never seen a film directed by Steve Soderbergh. Again, there was never any conscious choice to avoid his films, I just never got around to seeing any of his work. Funnily enough, the first film of his that I did see a couple of years ago was one of his most obscure, ‘King of The Hill’, which I watched on a giveaway VHS tape (still hasn’t been released on DVD as yet). I’ve seen ‘Out of Sight’ also since, but there’s a heck of a lot of his film work that I need to catch up on.

So to the other contributors here (and anyone else for that matter), is there any gaps in your film experience you feel regretful or baffled about?

 

Random Thread, April 2013

Drip, drip, drop
Little April shower
Beating a tune
As you fall all around

Drip, drip, drop
Little April shower
What can compare
To your beautiful sound

Drip, drip, drop
When the sky is cloudy
Your pretty music
Can brighten the day

Drip, drip, drop
When the sun says howdy
You say goodbye right away

Drip, drip drop
Little April shower
Beating a tune
Ev’rywhere that you fall

Drip, drip drop
Little April shower
I’m getting wet
And I don’t care at all

Drip, drop, drip, drop
I’ll never be afraid
Of a good little
Gay little
April serenade

Change of Theme

I think it’s time after seven years.

Opening in Sweden March 29th 2013

The Host
Director: Andrew Niccol
Plot description: When an unseen enemy threatens mankind by taking over their bodies and erasing their memories, Melanie will risk everything to protect the people she cares most about, proving that love can conquer all in a dangerous new world.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “The logic does not exactly flow in this new-age frisky script. The interpersonal relationships are also something to chew on. The chaste, young guy and horny young girl recognized from “Twilight.” Melanie/Wanderer get in considerably harsher tussles than Bella Swan for her sluttiness – thoughts go to some kind of oppressive honor society. We also get a replay of the triangle drama theme of “two guys and a girl.” Furthermore, we have the strange allusions to Islamic terrorists. I do not know how Stephenie Meyer is feeling or what her intentions are with “The Host”.” score 1/6
Aftonbladet: “Twilight author Stephenie Meyer’s promising existential experiment is reduced to a banal love story.” score 2/5
What Nick says: The big question here is – will Jeanine see it? And if so, will she review it?

ESKIL OCH TRINIDAD
Director: Stephan Apelgren
Plot description: “‘Hi my name is Eskil and I have lived in as many places as I am old, that is nine. Now we will move again and I don’t care where – it’s still the same. It’s called something in Finnish o located at the river. They have a power plant and a hockey team where I get to play.”
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Something in the story that stops it from staying with me – I never feel Eskil and Trinidad enough. On the other hand, the film breaks with a variety of cliché patterns.” score 4/6
Aftonbladet: “A family film that does not really resemble anything else. Although it probably takes place in the present, it’s very old fashioned in many ways. None the less an excellent children’s and family film for those who want a little more bite than the latest computer-animated Hollywood adventure.” score 3/5
What Nick says: Who watches this? Seriously? How could it get a cinema release? Must be something state-sponsored.

The Sarnos – A Life in Dirty Movies
Director: Plot description: A Swedish documentary about porn director Joseph W. Sarno (1921-2010), as told by his wife Peggy. A man of the opinion that he was filming Ingmar Bergman-class dramas, with the occasional nudity.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “A true story just as fascinating as the one about “Sugar Man” Rodriguez.” score 5/6
Aftonbladet: “Funny, dramatic, outspoken. A poignant and melancholy portrait of two people in old age.” score 3/5
What Nick says: This seems more up Slim’s alley than mine.

GI Joe: Retaliation
Director: Plot description:
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Everyone’s favorite Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson contributes a lot of tongue-in-eye-coolness and a ninja chase in the Himalayas is pretty cool, but mostly it just splashes around with its violent explosions and heavy metal guitars in this big, wasteful mess.” score 2/6
Aftonbladet: “I was just waiting for the misery to end.” score 1/5
What Nick says: First one was very silly fun, but not horrible. This looks horrible. Will still make money, though. What will the third one be?

Kauwboy
Director: Plot description: An absent mother. A father and a son who grieve in different ways. 10-year-old Jojo must fend for himself. When he finds a baby bird fallen from its nest, it becomes a vent, someone to talk to.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “It may sound dull, but “Kauwboy” is strangely uplifting. Perhaps because the film is honest. Because it takes the child’s grief seriously. For that, even in the dark is life-affirming. But mostly because the film is so skilfully made.” score 5/6
Aftonbladet: “Director Boudewijn Koole has produced fine performances from his actors – both adults and children – but maybe it’s all a little too recognizable from other films about families in grief, and maybe it ends a little too simple and easy.” score 3/5
What Nick says: Snore.

Review: Spring Breakers

It’s been over 24 hours since I’ve seen Spring Breakers, and I’m still at something of a loss to put into words how wondrous this film is. It’s not exactly a classic, but in it’s own way it’s a minor masterpiece, a film that takes a completely negligible genre, written and directed by an enfant terrible, and turns it into something marvelous. It’s as if Martin Scorsese made a Girls Gone Wild video.

The writer and director is Harmony Korine, who made a name as a very young man when he wrote the screenplay for Kids some twenty years ago. His last film was called Trash Humpers, which had homeless people having sex with trash cans. So it’s something of a miracle that this film is actually playing multiplexes (for how long, I don’t know–I was the sole viewer in the showing I went to).

The stars are young women who made their name on shows for teens: Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens on Disney Channel properties, and Ashley Benson on a show called Pretty Little Liars. But this film is distinctly not for teens, and credit must be given to these young ladies for stretching themselves. I would also like to personally thank them for appearing mostly in bikinis.

Those who have followed my reviews know I am partial to young, scantily clad women, and that is certainly a plus of Spring Breakers. But Korine has taken that and run with it, creating a beautiful and haunting film about a search for spiritual awakening. Yes, I said that right. At one point, Gomez says in a call to her grandmother that St. Petersburg at spring break is the most spiritual place she’s ever been. That sounds like a laugh line, and to some extent it its, but it’s also a truth of sorts, for Korine has created a spring break that is the site of a religious pilgrimage, an idyll that is roughly equivalent to Nirvana.

The film opens with a montage of shots of a Bacchanalia on the beach. Young, attractive people, drinking from funnels, frolicking like nymphs, the women bare-breasted, the men with six-pack abs. There are no frowns, no troubles, no worries, just unadulterated bliss.

Back at their college, four girls (the fourth is Rachel Korine, the wife of the director) are at college, sitting in a darkened lecture hall, the glow of laptops in front of every student. They want to go to spring break, but don’t have the money. Three of the girls are kind of loose–Hudgens and Benson share penis drawings in class, while Gomez is a girl of faith (her name, clumsily is Faith). She is warned about the other girls by her Jesus-freak friends (“they have demon blood”) but Gomez has known them all since kindergarten.

The three non-Christians decide on a bold plan: they rob a Chicken Shack with water pistols (normally used for squirting shots of spirits into their mouth) and use the cash to take a bus to St. Pete. I think the use of such a mundane city as St. Pete as the place that is over the rainbow for these girls is both funny and poignant. Gomez, though not participating in the robbery, goes along with them.

They party hard. I’ve never been on spring break, but I imagine it’s like this–copious drinking and smoking dope (one fellow has fashioned a babydoll into a bong). One party gets raided, and the four girls, still in bikinis, are locked up, since they can’t pay a fine. Enter Alien.

As bad as James Franco was in Oz the Great and Powerful he is genius here. Alien is a corn-rowed, gold-grilled drug dealer and rapper and pays the girl’s fine. Gomez is immediately suspicious of his intentions, and bolts back home. But the remaining three become his molls, as he asserts himself against the drug lord of the city, Big Arch (Gucci Mane) and they become a crew of home invasion artists. The robberies are done in a montage set to “Everytime,” by Britney Spears, whom Franco unironically claims is the greatest singer of all time.

Alien is such a great character. In a wonderful scene he shows the girls all his “shit,” which includes machine guns, nunchakus, Calvin Klein fragrances, and Scarface on repeated on the TV, 24/7. The girls and Franco form a bond when, showing them the guns, they take them away, loaded, and make him fellate the barrels. This is what makes him fall in love with them.

When one of the girls is wounded in a drive-by, Franco and the remaining girls plan on vengeance. The girls wear bikinis, sneakers, and pink ski-masks, their girlish backpacks strapped on. The ending is a balletic bit of gunplay that recalls The Wild Bunch.

I really dug this film. I loved the hallucinatory nature of it. Visually it’s stunning, with candy-colored photography by Benoit Debie. At times we just see images of spring break, with Franco intoning those two words as if they were a mantra. And yes, the film is sexy, with a Franco, Hudgens, and Benson engaging in a menage a trois in a swimming pool. Eroticism is a very difficult thing to pull off in movies anymore without seeming gratuitous, but this scene is both erotic, romantic, and tasteful.

The acting by the girls is adequate, without any of them distinguishing herself. I would have liked to know a little bit more about the characters other than Gomez. But I’m quibbling. This is a major achievement by a least likely director with a least likely cast in a least likely plot.

My grade for Spring Breakers: A-.

Opening in Sweden – 22 March 2013

Bakom Stängda Dörrar
Original title: Dans la Maison
Director: Francois Ozon
IMDb: A sixteen-year-old boy insinuates himself into the house of a fellow student from his literature class and writes about it in essays for his French teacher. Faced with this gifted and unusual pupil, the teacher rediscovers his enthusiasm for his work, but the boy’s intrusion will unleash a series of uncontrollable events.
IMDB score: 7.4
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Ozone has mastered the medium to perfection. Seamlessly switching and weaving between different story planes – school life, discussions of student texts, the teacher and the wife. If a film can be a page-turner then this is certainly one.” score 5/6
Aftonbladet: “What is true and what is fiction in the texts? How make reality into better fiction? The literary references rain like cats and dogs, and at first “Behind Closed Doors” is relatively smart and funny. In the second half of the film director François Ozon has unfortunately become a little too pleased with his own cleverness and gone astray.” score 2/5
What Nick says: Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever watched an Ozon film.

Broken
Director: Rufus Norris
IMDb: The story of a young girl in North London whose life changes after witnessing a violent attack.
IMDB score: 7.2
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “It is seldom that I have seen such a multifaceted portrait of a girl as the one Eloise Laurence performs. “Broken” is as complicated and unpredictable as life itself in Rufus Norris astoundingly assured first film, filmed with very own rhythm and energy. It really is a shame that “Broken” has received a 15-year limit for this is a fantastic little film whose 11-year-old protagonist is made for a younger audience.” score 6/6
Aftonbladet: “On the one hand, “Broken” suffer from the typical indie film cave spirit of social realism, tragedy’s downward spirals. On the other hand, the film has a lot of charm, a quiet melancholy, beautiful cinematography, fine acting and nice details. “Broken” is uneven, but it’s hard to stay totally unaffected when the credits start.” score 3/5
What Nick says: Tim Roth stars and both he and the film have won several awards, at the Stockholm Film Festival for one. Music by Damon Albarn (from Blur). Think I’ll get around to watching it eventually.

BÄST FÖRE
Director: Mats Arehn
Plot description: Three older gentlemen facing a mid-life crisis win a small sum gambling, and decide to spend on a cruise ship to Finland, where all their old sins will come back to haunt them.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Bäst Före” scrutinizes the fragile masculinity with an austere vision that does not exclude a gentle humor.” score 4/6
Aftonbladet: “Best before” deftly captures a Swedish pale everyday, it is sad and poor. The risk is of course that it is … well, boring to follow gloomy types whose power is sufficient to ruin the other. Silence and uncomfortable pauses. Embarrassing speeches and pickup attempts. Depressing quarrels. The film feels at times like being on a miserable trip where you want to land as soon as possible.” score 3/5
What Nick says: The actors that they’ve assembled can actually deliver when they’re given the right material. I’m just not sure that this is that.

CROODARNA
Original title: The Croods
IMDb: The world’s very first prehistoric family goes on a road trip to an uncharted and fantastical world.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “The filmmakers are probably trying whiff up a critique of fundamentalism and conservatism in “Croodarna”. But in their eagerness to invent one more bizarre prehistoric animal after another, all intelligence is drowned in a cacophony of color and noise.” 1/6
Aftonbladet: “There is a lot of action and slapstick, reminiscent of “Madagascar” and “Ice Age”. But there are also fun lines and surprising twists reminiscent of “Shrek.” score 3/5

INGEN RIKTIG FINNE
Director: Mika Ronkainen
Plot description: A father and son gon on trip that develops into a musical journey into feelings and memories of the Finnish migration into Sweden; stories of shame, crime, alcoholism and family secrets.
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “A touching film about rootlessness and alienation. Kai is not a real Fin, but he never felt like a real Swede.” score 4/6
Aftonbladet: “There will be meetings with others who have similar holes in their self-image. Artists like Anna Järvinen and Moonlight Orchestra stand in the wild and sing sad songs in Finnish, a handle that lifts the film.” score 3/5
What Nick says: Documentary about Fins. Doesn’t sound fun, but it’s something I might watch just because of its oddness. And to be contrary.

KON-TIKI
Director: Joachim Rønning, Espen Sandberg
IMDb score: 7.2
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Personally, I think “Kon-Tiki” is a bold experience in a tradition springing directly from vintage Hollywood films like “Stanley and Livingstone” or a thrilling story in The Little Guy’s Calendar from 1949. In short, a film in the spirit of those days, when the Scandinavians celebrated life and went out into the world. If this is what the filmmakers sought, they have succeeded quite nicely.” score 4/6
Aftonbladet: “Kon-Tiki” is a cleverly told story, aesthetically pleasing in a Hollywood-scented way.” score 3/5
What Nick says: I feel like it’s one of those I “have” to see, considering its Best Foreign nomination, and since people have asked me about it. Not really into it, though.

This is 40
Director: Judd Apatow
What the critics in Sweden say:
Svenska Dagbladet: “Worst is contemporary Hollywood’s obsession with a nice, clean ending. Nothing should be taken seriously, two hours of crisis swept out and cleaned up for the family portrait. Life experiences and neuroses are undone. Compare with Woody Allen in his prime, who could make us laugh, diaphragm dislocated – and when the movie was over, seek therapy.” score 3/6
Aftonbladet: “Of course it is proof of its poverty that I can get so happy when women in film are not carping magpies, and have at least half the funny lines coming out of their mouths and where adults actually behave like adults. But I become happy and laugh I do.” score 4/5
What Nick says: A few years ago I would have watched anything Judd Apatow did. Now, not so much. Don’t know what happened, but his films feel like they lack sting.

Happy St. Patrick’s Day 2013

Not the best picture this year, but we had camera difficulties. Anyway, enjoy the day, which in most of the country is unseasonably cold.

Review: The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013)

(Warning: contains some spoilers)

In my opinion the genre that’s declined in quality more than any other in films in recent decades (with mainstream Hollywood films at least) is the comedy. Year after year, I see comedies that fall almost completely flat. Too often it they’ve been made for a trailer as opposed to an entire film. A sense of rhythm, timing and texture seems to have been lost. Sure, it’s great if the script has funny gags in them but if you don’t utilise them right, they can just die when seen by an audience.

A good example of this is ‘The Incredible Burt Wonderstone’, a film that has a lot of good elements and potential (and does have some occasional laughs), but overall just doesn’t work.

The film begins in 1982 showing how young Burt Wonderstone developed his love of magic and met Anton Marvelton, forming a magic act. The film flashes forward to the present (now played by Steve Carell & Steve Buscemi) where they are highly successful Vegas stage magicians. But they’ve jaded and complacent (especially Burt) and challenged by radical street magician Steve Gray (Jim Carrey) they break up and Burt’s life spirals out of control. Can he get back to the top?

The biggest problem this film has is that its tone and timing are so erratic. Sometimes it’s a farcical comedy with non-realistic gags flying everywhere. Sometimes it’s a ‘realistic’, sentimental film, such as in the by-the-numbers unconvincing relationship and romance between Burt and Jane (Olivia Wilde).

As well the plot is a tedious mix of unbelievable and contrived events to get to its predictable conclusion. For example towards the latter stages of the film Burt appears at a child’s birthday party (that of his former boss) to do a magic show and for no good reason Steve Gray is an attendee, only so the a confrontation between the two can occur and the film can wheeze it’s way another step towards its conclusion.

The problem with the film’s tone are reflected in Carell’s performance as Burt. In the first half he portrays (reasonably amusingly) Burt as thoroughly narcissistic, jaded, sexist and obnoxious. And after a brief period of introspection, in the second half of the film Burt becomes considerate, thoughtful and well-meaning (more or less the stock Carell type). One can understand the character going through a character change but it’s done in such a perfunctory, lazy manner it distances one’s interest in the film.

It’s not surprising that the writers of this film also wrote 2011’s ‘Horrible Bosses’ as they have a similar tone – a smattering of good moments amongst an array of shock gags, perfunctory plotting and weak characterisation.

The film does have compensations, especially in the performance of Carrey. In his most enjoyable work in years, he’s very amusing as Gray. He creates a compelling persona where one can see why he garners such wide public appeal but also see his limitations and likely downfall through his egotism. To be frank, if the film had been centred around Gray, it would probably have been a better one.

Alan Arkin is also enjoyable as Rance Holloway (Burt’s inspiration for getting into magic). It’s been pleasing to see Arkin have a late-career renaissance since his Oscar for ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ as he shows that after all these decades, he’s always good to watch. However, his fairly realistic and enjoyable portrayal of an elderly, long-retired magician is jarring compared with the almost cartoon-like characters and farcical events elsewhere in the film. At no stage of the film does the tone properly mesh.

‘The Incredible Burt Wonderstone’ does have its positive aspects and funny moments but put simply this isn’t a very good film. It’s just yet another example of the inability of present-day filmmakers to properly construct a comedy film.

Rating: C

Opening in New York, The Ides of March

At the multiplexes this weekend are two films, neither of which interest me at all. The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (44) is a film about Vegas magicians. I’ve noted that I have not seen one promotional item for this film at all, though others have. I’m interested that Jim Carrey does not even appear on the poster. As A.O. Scott points out, it seems that Steve Carell is playing a part that calls out for Will Ferrell.

The other film opening big this weekend is The Call (52), which seems to indicate that the Oscar curse is still haunting Halle Berry.

Lots of action in the art houses this weekend, highlighted by Spring Breakers (64). There’s been a ton of press on this, especially considering it’s a Harmony Korine film, and his last was something called Trash Humpers. Of course, the press concerns the stars and Disney Channel refugees, Selena Gomez and Vanessa Hudgens. I don’t know whether I’ll catch this in theaters, but you can bet I’ll see it on DVD, where I can use zoom and pause. I love this from Manohla Dargis, in the rating explanation: “Gun violence and enough naked breasts to supply material for a second Seth McFarlane song.”

Also in art houses is Ginger and Rose (69), a British film from Sally Potter starring Elle Fanning and Alice Englert as girlfriends in the early ’60s; Upside Down, (41) a sci-fi film starring Kirsten Dunst; and If I Were You, (28) with Marcia Gay Harden.

Philip Roth: Unmasked (65) opened on Wednesday for a one-week run at Film Forum before airing on PBS’s American Masters series later this month. It’s part of the celebration of the novelist’s 80th birthday on March 19th. He is my favorite novelist, so I’ll hunt it down on television.

Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

In the 1930s, Walt Disney planned on making L. Frank Baum’s book, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, into an animated film. MGM beat him to the punch, though, and made a film in 1939 that you may have seen a time or two. Disney, probably pissed off (even though the 1939 film was not a box office hit) bought the rights to all of the remaining Oz books. But try as they might, Disney has not hit pay dirt on an Oz film. The Return to Oz from 1985 was a thundering dud, and the latest attempt, Oz the Great and Powerful, while it looks to be a hit, is a hollow and cynical film that seems to have no purpose but to make money.

Despite mediocre reviews, I wanted to see it if only because I was intrigued by the visuals in the trailer and it has the most attractive female cast in quite a while, at least until Spring Breakers opens later this month. And I was pleased with the opening credit sequence, which has a sense of history. And the film, which for copyright reasons couldn’t make any direct references to the 1939 film, does pay homage to it, by opening with a square screen and black and white, switching to brilliant color upon the protagonist’s arrival in Oz.

That protagonist is Oscar Diggs, a third-rate carnival magician. It is Kansas, 1905, and Diggs (James Franco) is scraping by, a self-absorbed Casanova who has no friends. While attempting to escape the clutches of the cuckolded strongman, Diggs hops into a hot air balloon, which is promptly sucked into a tornado. He crash lands in Oz, where he meets a beautiful young woman (Mila Kunis), who is a witch but looks great in tight leather black pants. He has fulfilled a prophecy that a wizard will arrive, become king, and make peace. Diggs likes this, especially when he hears there’s treasure.

Diggs will later meet two other witches–Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams–and it’s a bit of a guessing game as to which one will turn pickle-green and become the Wicked Witch of the West. Diggs will have to overcome his selfishness and discover the good man inside.

It may not seem fair to compare this film to The Wizard of Oz, which is one of the most enchanting films ever made, and is firmly ingrained in almost every filmgoer’s subconscious, but if you’re going to have the onions to make a prequel to that film, you’ve got to take the lumps when your film comes up woefully short in the charm department. There’s lots of blame to go around. Director Sam Raimi doesn’t add much to a simple-minded script, and while the script avoids most references to the original (I liked that Diggs’ old girlfriend is marrying John Gale, which means she just may be Dorothy’s mother) it does adopt a similar structure. Diggs has only two sidekicks rather than Dorothy’s three–a talking winged monkey dressed like a bellhop, and a doll made of China. As with the original, both have human counterpoints in the Kansas sequence, but unlike the Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion, these characters aren’t very interesting and offer nothing of distinction.

But perhaps the biggest problem is the acting. Franco and Kunis are the biggest problems. Both are so contemporary that they strike me as amateurs playing dress up. While Kunis has the classic look of a silent-film actress (George Hurrell would have made a wonderful portrait of her), neither she nor Franco has the chops to play such iconic characters, nor the diction. Diggs should have been played by someone far more silver-tongued. Rachel Weisz fares much better, while Williams is blandly pretty as Glinda, who still travels by bubble.

The film also is a little risque for a children’s film. Not only is the womanizing of Diggs inappropriate, but the Wicked Witch’s decolletage would have shocked Margaret Hamilton. The last shot is the Wizard in lip lock with Glinda, which makes me think uncomfortably back to the original. Billie Burke and Frank Morgan, together? Ewww.

Mostly this film, while it has some interesting production design, is just flat and uninspired. My brother, who has small children that love The Wizard of Oz, asked me if it was kid-friendly. I guess it is, but I’d hate for them to see this film. They should just watch the original again and again.

My grade for Oz the Great and Powerful: C-

 

Movies Opening in Connecticut – Weekend of March 8, 2013

One major studio release this weekend and a whole bunch of random indies that are unlikely to make waves.

Oz: The Great and Powerful (RT: 56%, MC: 45%): Disney’s Spring tentpole, a prequel to The Wizard of Oz.  Directed by Sam Raimi (Spider-Man, A Simple Plan, Evil Dead) and starring James Franco, Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams.  Reviews appear to be decent, although it sounds like it loses steam in the second half.  Tracking indicates a significantly stronger showing that last week’s disastrous Jack The Giant Slayer, which is certainly good news for the 200M film.

Dead Man Down (RT: 40%, MC: 42%): Colin Farrell and Noomi Rapace co-star in this glossy, B-grade suspense thriller from director Niels Arden Oplev (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo).  I have to say I’m fairly shocked this is a wide release.  There’s no real hook, Farrell has proven time and time again that he can not open a picture and Oplev’s unremarkable skills seem better suited for television crime procedurals (which he’s been doing for CBS) rather than full-fledged motion pictures.  Anyway, I can’t imagine there’s any reason to see this theatrically.

Emperor (RT: 35%, MC: 45%):  Tommy Lee Jones / Matthew Fox WWII drama that somehow landed a (contractually obligated?) theatrical release.  Roadside Attractions is the distributor so look for this on Netflix streaming in, at most, a few months.

The Monk (Le Moine) (RT: 66%, MC: 62% ): Gothic horror picture starring Vincent Cassel.  I read the description several times and still couldn’t grasp what it’s about. Something involving monks and a mysterious stranger who leads them into temptation (spoiler: almost certainly the devil or something).  Enjoy.

The Gatekeepers (Shomerei Ha’Saf) (RT: 93%, MC: 90%):  Documentary about Israel’s Secret Service.

Happy People: A Year in the Taiga (RT: 88%, MC: 74%): Werner Herzog documentary about inhabitants of the Siberian wilderness.

For classic fare: The Criterion in New Haven is running Dark Victory (1939) starring Bette Davis and Humphrey Bogart and Mel Brooks’ Young Frankenstein (1974) Fri-Sun.