movies, in brief
Dec. 30th, 2008 05:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
coyotegothQuantum of Solace is a perfectly respectable Bond film, although at times, I found the editing to be a bit frenetic; it has the usual handsome locations, and one of the most vertiginous fight scenes I've seen since Remo Williams: the Adventure Begins. (Also, after his sufferings in The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, it's pure delight to watch Mathieu Amalric running around, doing his bad guy thing.)
What lifts this movie above mediocrity is its Bond: Daniel Craig is simply the best actor ever to play the role. Connery had arrogance, and charm, and a sense of menace in his movements; however, it was hard to believe that his Bond could ever fail (most of the best moments in Never Say Never Again centered around the fact that his Bond *was* aging- that, and Klaus Maria Brandauer, who had devilish fun with his absurd role. See Bond duel with the bad guy-over a video game!) Moore was rarely more than a quip and a cocked eyebrow (although he was capable of much more- see him in Ffolkes, for instance); while his ultra-smooth approach suited the gadget fests the movies became in those years, it gave you no real sense of a human being. Brosnan gave it a good try, but was hampered by a creative team that had no real sense of direction; Dalton simply looked as though he needed more fiber in his diet. As for George Lazenby, who performed probably the most under-appreciated Bond, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (still the best Bind film overall)-he did well enough, in the thankless task of following up Connery: his Bond was at least as amusing as Moore's, while also helping to sell the pathos of the ending, at least to a point.
The whole point of the ending- him grieving Tracy's death- is that this is the path to which his own life of violence has led him. As Lazenby plays the part, you certainly feel his sadness over her fate- but as I didn't buy Lazenby as an assassin, the ending loses much of its force: this isn't supposed to be simply Bond grieving over a loved one- this is his past catching up with him (he may well have killed someone's Tracy- or the male equivalent- along the way).
Daniel Craig's Bond is fully believable as an assassin, and as a grieving lover; he has both a killer's eyes and a human frailty. It's impossible to imagine Moore or Connery making, say, the torture scene in Casino Royale work to the same degree: this is a man with human vulnerabilities (it's no accident that both Craig Bond films have centered around the possibility of Bond's failing at his job).
***
Were the World Mine isn't a major film, but it is a lovely, touching one; it's A Midsummer Night's Dream reconceived as a gay musical, with the sort of lovely, ingenuous production design such films can often be particularly good at (witness Velvet Goldmine, with a somewhat larger budget)(or, remember Zero Patience?) Lovely songs, too; well worth seeing.
***
David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a generally quite touching film about a man who grows younger as he ages- he's born into a (baby-sized) gnarled old man's body, and gradually reverts to infancy. (All manner of technical work went into putting aged versions of Brad Pitt's face onto smaller-sized body double actors; it's generally quite convincing, although they fail to give him an old man's rheumy eyes; while it may have simply been an artistic choice to have Brad Pitt's vivid blue eyes in an old man's wrinkled face, it doesn't come off that way.) The most moving part of the film comes near the end: he enters into a relationship with his childhood love, Daisy, knowing that it cannot last-that she will grow old, and he, young, both to forget in the end.)(Roger Ebert misses the point rather spectacularly here: the fact that they enter into this relationship despite knowing that they will age apart in different directions is the point. Also, Roger, your speculations about what they're thinking about when they're with each other smack of ageism in the worst way- wouldn't they simply be thinking of each other?)
If this film has a major flaw, it's that it reminds me rather too much, overall, of Forrest Gump1 (they were both adapted by the same screenwriter, Eric Roth): an essentially reactive character wanders through life, meeting eccentric characters and learning life lessons along the way. (There's some business with a hummingbird that's a near duplicate of the "feather in the wind" motif from Gump, as well as another eccentric boat captain.) Still, it is a lovely, touching film- a new artistic area for David Fincher, as well.
1 Man, is it odd to say that about a David Fincher movie. OK, moving on...
***
Revolutionary Road is an interesting film, and a frustrating one, as well: directed by Sam Mendes, who did American Beauty, it's another exploration of suburban disquiet- this one set in the '50s. Mendes directs with his usual sharp sense of detail (although the film begins a bit too in media res for my taste- we see Kate and Leo meet at a party; then, almost before we know it, they're married, and she's acting in his play, and they're having a screaming tirade at the side of the road.) Mendes gets wonderful work from Kate Winslet- but Leo DiCaprio, as the WWII-vet husband, is as dramatically outclassed as he was in Gangs of New York (if he'd been about fifteen years younger, Clive Owen could have been a good choice for Leo's role). He's playing the central character in the film, but he seems incapable of delivering soliloquies without having them sound like- well, written soliloquies; we get no real sense of his frustration at his own inability to live up to either the American Dream (a favorite Mendes subject), or his own lost dreams.
He's best when the character is supposed to be lost, over his head; there's a scene where he's receiving bad news in a hospital, where he starts crying like a child, that's quite moving. It's where this character is supposed to be reacting to his own past- his own lifetime of frustrated dreams- that Di Caprio fails (there's an actor playing a friend who fucks Winslet in a car, then grieves privately when she's in the hospital, who winds up communicating his emotional arc more clearly in a quarter of the screen time). There is a great deal to like about this film- Winslet never disappoints; it has a natty sense of period detail; it's good to see![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rm onscreen, in a scene in a nightclub... but in the end, I think it's time for Mendes to find a new subject.
***
Milk is simply the most moving film I've seen this year. It's intelligent in its depiction of the politics, while never losing sight of the human drama- tragedy- at its core: that of Harvey Milk, a gay man who discovered empowerment by moving to San Francisco, coming out of the closet, and entering the San Francisco political arena... before being assassinated by Dan White, a fellow city supervisor who (the film strongly suggests) may have been in the closet, himself. Sean Penn, James Franco, Josh Brolin- all do excellent work here, as does Gus Van Sant, the director. Strongly, strongly recommended.
(I still hope to see Australia before year's end, and perhaps Moulin Rouge as well- which ties with It's a Wonderful Life for "movie I've viewed most often, but never from beginning to end.")
What lifts this movie above mediocrity is its Bond: Daniel Craig is simply the best actor ever to play the role. Connery had arrogance, and charm, and a sense of menace in his movements; however, it was hard to believe that his Bond could ever fail (most of the best moments in Never Say Never Again centered around the fact that his Bond *was* aging- that, and Klaus Maria Brandauer, who had devilish fun with his absurd role. See Bond duel with the bad guy-over a video game!) Moore was rarely more than a quip and a cocked eyebrow (although he was capable of much more- see him in Ffolkes, for instance); while his ultra-smooth approach suited the gadget fests the movies became in those years, it gave you no real sense of a human being. Brosnan gave it a good try, but was hampered by a creative team that had no real sense of direction; Dalton simply looked as though he needed more fiber in his diet. As for George Lazenby, who performed probably the most under-appreciated Bond, in On Her Majesty's Secret Service (still the best Bind film overall)-he did well enough, in the thankless task of following up Connery: his Bond was at least as amusing as Moore's, while also helping to sell the pathos of the ending, at least to a point.
The whole point of the ending- him grieving Tracy's death- is that this is the path to which his own life of violence has led him. As Lazenby plays the part, you certainly feel his sadness over her fate- but as I didn't buy Lazenby as an assassin, the ending loses much of its force: this isn't supposed to be simply Bond grieving over a loved one- this is his past catching up with him (he may well have killed someone's Tracy- or the male equivalent- along the way).
Daniel Craig's Bond is fully believable as an assassin, and as a grieving lover; he has both a killer's eyes and a human frailty. It's impossible to imagine Moore or Connery making, say, the torture scene in Casino Royale work to the same degree: this is a man with human vulnerabilities (it's no accident that both Craig Bond films have centered around the possibility of Bond's failing at his job).
Were the World Mine isn't a major film, but it is a lovely, touching one; it's A Midsummer Night's Dream reconceived as a gay musical, with the sort of lovely, ingenuous production design such films can often be particularly good at (witness Velvet Goldmine, with a somewhat larger budget)(or, remember Zero Patience?) Lovely songs, too; well worth seeing.
David Fincher's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a generally quite touching film about a man who grows younger as he ages- he's born into a (baby-sized) gnarled old man's body, and gradually reverts to infancy. (All manner of technical work went into putting aged versions of Brad Pitt's face onto smaller-sized body double actors; it's generally quite convincing, although they fail to give him an old man's rheumy eyes; while it may have simply been an artistic choice to have Brad Pitt's vivid blue eyes in an old man's wrinkled face, it doesn't come off that way.) The most moving part of the film comes near the end: he enters into a relationship with his childhood love, Daisy, knowing that it cannot last-that she will grow old, and he, young, both to forget in the end.)(Roger Ebert misses the point rather spectacularly here: the fact that they enter into this relationship despite knowing that they will age apart in different directions is the point. Also, Roger, your speculations about what they're thinking about when they're with each other smack of ageism in the worst way- wouldn't they simply be thinking of each other?)
If this film has a major flaw, it's that it reminds me rather too much, overall, of Forrest Gump1 (they were both adapted by the same screenwriter, Eric Roth): an essentially reactive character wanders through life, meeting eccentric characters and learning life lessons along the way. (There's some business with a hummingbird that's a near duplicate of the "feather in the wind" motif from Gump, as well as another eccentric boat captain.) Still, it is a lovely, touching film- a new artistic area for David Fincher, as well.
1 Man, is it odd to say that about a David Fincher movie. OK, moving on...
Revolutionary Road is an interesting film, and a frustrating one, as well: directed by Sam Mendes, who did American Beauty, it's another exploration of suburban disquiet- this one set in the '50s. Mendes directs with his usual sharp sense of detail (although the film begins a bit too in media res for my taste- we see Kate and Leo meet at a party; then, almost before we know it, they're married, and she's acting in his play, and they're having a screaming tirade at the side of the road.) Mendes gets wonderful work from Kate Winslet- but Leo DiCaprio, as the WWII-vet husband, is as dramatically outclassed as he was in Gangs of New York (if he'd been about fifteen years younger, Clive Owen could have been a good choice for Leo's role). He's playing the central character in the film, but he seems incapable of delivering soliloquies without having them sound like- well, written soliloquies; we get no real sense of his frustration at his own inability to live up to either the American Dream (a favorite Mendes subject), or his own lost dreams.
He's best when the character is supposed to be lost, over his head; there's a scene where he's receiving bad news in a hospital, where he starts crying like a child, that's quite moving. It's where this character is supposed to be reacting to his own past- his own lifetime of frustrated dreams- that Di Caprio fails (there's an actor playing a friend who fucks Winslet in a car, then grieves privately when she's in the hospital, who winds up communicating his emotional arc more clearly in a quarter of the screen time). There is a great deal to like about this film- Winslet never disappoints; it has a natty sense of period detail; it's good to see
rm onscreen, in a scene in a nightclub... but in the end, I think it's time for Mendes to find a new subject.Milk is simply the most moving film I've seen this year. It's intelligent in its depiction of the politics, while never losing sight of the human drama- tragedy- at its core: that of Harvey Milk, a gay man who discovered empowerment by moving to San Francisco, coming out of the closet, and entering the San Francisco political arena... before being assassinated by Dan White, a fellow city supervisor who (the film strongly suggests) may have been in the closet, himself. Sean Penn, James Franco, Josh Brolin- all do excellent work here, as does Gus Van Sant, the director. Strongly, strongly recommended.
(I still hope to see Australia before year's end, and perhaps Moulin Rouge as well- which ties with It's a Wonderful Life for "movie I've viewed most often, but never from beginning to end.")
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-30 11:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-31 12:50 am (UTC)