With three R-rated comedy mega hits under his belt, it would appear that Judd Apatow could do no wrong. With co-writer and director Jake Kasdan, Apatow takes a stab at the spoof, which has become the lowest form of cinematic “comedy” these days (see DATE MOVIE, EPIC MOVIE and the upcoming MEET THE SPARTANS). Deriding the recent wave of musical biopics, WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX story is only moderately successful. It’s side-splittingly funny in parts, but 96 minutes spent spoofing two or three movies leaves the viewer with a rather empty feeling.
Taking mostly from WALK THE LINE, the film tells the epic life of music superstar Dewey Cox (John C. Reilly), a Johnny Cash-like guitar man who rises to fame in the early 60s, falls in the 70s when he interacts with drinking and drugs, and finds redemption just in time to receive a lifetime achievement award. After losing his prodigal brother in a machete accident, young Dewey channels his inner guilt and rage at his father’s alienation into a new kind of music that angers elders and drives youngsters to grinding dances. He quickly rises to fame, despite being stuck with a skeptical and usually pregnant wife (Kristen Wiig). He goes through the roller coasters that seem to strike every musician; his band members introduce him to drugs and later desert him. He meets his true love (Jenna Fischer) while still married, though he doesn’t quite realize how that system works.
Most of the jokes are based on 2005’s WALK THE LINE, and the main storyline is a near copy; there are a few dashes of RAY thrown in (Dewey suffers a lost sense of smell). The problem is that with a spoof, making fun of only one film quickly grows tiresome. What made early spoofs like AIRPLANE successes were the amount of films referenced in them, no matter whether they had anything to do with the plot or not. There are a few related bits that remain funny throughout; machete motifs and the constant references to characters’ ages are a few. But the more successful bits are actually the raunchy R-rated jokes that hold no bearing on the plot. The film’s many songs are likely its greatest attribute. Performed wonderfully by Reilly, they display the writers at their most creative and cleverest. From the innuendo-filled “Let’s Duet” to the catchy title song to the genuinely affecting “A Life Without You”, the songs quickly become the most memorable thing about the film.
Unfortunately, star Reilly doesn’t bring much to the table. Playing basically the same character he did in last year’s TALLADEGA NIGHTS, his comic abilities seem to have lessened in the transition from supporting role to leading. He sings admirably, but the “aw, shucks” dumb guy shtick grows as tired as the jokes. His other bits seem taken directly from his past co-stars, the most notable being his Incredible Hulk-fused version of the running around in underwear made, Will Ferrell style. Wiig and Tim Meadows come off with the best gags in the film; Wiig manages to make her one-joke character humorous throughout while Meadows’s spirited protestations against the effects of pot and cocaine are probably the funniest thing in the film. In the end, however, WALK HARD isn’t as funny as its spoof predecessors, though it is mercifully a step above recent offerings. The musical biopic genre is ripe for parody, but every spoof requires a wider eye to keep from growing stale or repetitive.
**/****
Friday, December 28, 2007
Sunday, December 23, 2007
The Kite Runner
Khaled Hosseini’s wildly popular 2003 novel THE KITE RUNNER arrives on screens this holiday season in the form of a treacly, cliché-ridden that raises the big issues people think Oscar voters love. Though there are aspects to admire, it is clear the filmmakers believed that simply retelling the story would have been good enough to hit a homerun, but it leaves its viewers cold and unaffected at the end.
The film tells the story of Amir (Zekeiria Ebrahimi as a child, Khalid Abdalla as an adult), an Afghan immigrant novelist living in California. He receives a phone call from an old friend in Pakistan, asking him to return to his homeland so he can “do good again”. Amir reflects on his early life in Kabul, where he and his best friend Hassan (Ahmad Kahn Mahmidzada) flew kites everyday, practicing for a city-wide kite tournament. When a violent attack on Hassan splits the boys apart, the entire world seems to unravel. The Soviets soon invade and Amir and his father are forced to flee, eventually winding up in America. Amir grows to into young adulthood, missing his friend all the while. He returns to Pakistan, where he finds a chance to repay his dear friend; he must rescue Hassan’s son Sohrab from the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
The film’s most crippling flaw is its by-the-numbers and passionless screenplay, courtesy of David Benioff (who’s other work includes gems like TROY and STAY). It adapts the book with a mind to being as straightforward as possible; little to no time is taken to develop characters in a purely cinematic form. The depth of Amir and Hassan’s friendship must be assumed, because there is no explicit demonstration of it in the actual film. A revelation late in the film explains a bit more about the characters, but Amir’s drive to save Sohrab rests almost exclusively on what is said in clichéd preachy dialogue, not what is shown. It is understood why Amir returns to Pakistan to help Hassan, but because of the weak writing, it feels more like an obligation than a chance to ease a terribly guilty conscience. Another irritating trait in the script is its use of language. The sequences of Amir’s youth are told in dialects spoken in Kabul (a brave choice for a big studio-funded film). But makes makes it irritating when the characters switch back and forth between English and Middle Eastern dialects in Amir’s adulthood. Characters start conversation in their native languages, then switch to English when important points must be made.
Director Marc Forster retains the interesting visual eye he displayed in FINDING NEVERLAND and STRANGER THAN FICTION, but it sometimes causes the film to feel like a family-friendly look at life in the Middle East. There is danger there, but the true horrors seem skirted around. In some instances, the restraint shown works quite well (and is quite necessary), but most everything else remains curiously bright and cheery. It reflects the mindset of the young boys early in the film, and it works there; this is mainly because of the spirited and heartwarming performances from Ebrahimi and Mahmidzada. Some of the technical work is spotty as well; though the kite tournament is vibrantly rendered via CGI, the all-computerized shots of the kites flying and the live action shots of the children on the ground never really connect, and the film looses the sense of excitement it should have. Alberto Iglesias’s score is an oddity; starting off melodic and evocative but quickly turning overbearing and terribly orchestrated.
The filmmakers likely assumed that the popularity of the book would guarantee them a success, and that was their first mistake. It has happened many times with high-profile literary adaptations; not enough care is put into making it an actual film. The chief problem here is the screenplay, which does not adequately describe the characters and their emotions. Oh sure, they say how they feel, but a viewer can handle only so many heavy-handed speeches with statements about life we’ve heard before. There is some joy and truth to be found in THE KITE RUNNER, but it is not nearly as effective as its source.
**1/2/****
The film tells the story of Amir (Zekeiria Ebrahimi as a child, Khalid Abdalla as an adult), an Afghan immigrant novelist living in California. He receives a phone call from an old friend in Pakistan, asking him to return to his homeland so he can “do good again”. Amir reflects on his early life in Kabul, where he and his best friend Hassan (Ahmad Kahn Mahmidzada) flew kites everyday, practicing for a city-wide kite tournament. When a violent attack on Hassan splits the boys apart, the entire world seems to unravel. The Soviets soon invade and Amir and his father are forced to flee, eventually winding up in America. Amir grows to into young adulthood, missing his friend all the while. He returns to Pakistan, where he finds a chance to repay his dear friend; he must rescue Hassan’s son Sohrab from the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.
The film’s most crippling flaw is its by-the-numbers and passionless screenplay, courtesy of David Benioff (who’s other work includes gems like TROY and STAY). It adapts the book with a mind to being as straightforward as possible; little to no time is taken to develop characters in a purely cinematic form. The depth of Amir and Hassan’s friendship must be assumed, because there is no explicit demonstration of it in the actual film. A revelation late in the film explains a bit more about the characters, but Amir’s drive to save Sohrab rests almost exclusively on what is said in clichéd preachy dialogue, not what is shown. It is understood why Amir returns to Pakistan to help Hassan, but because of the weak writing, it feels more like an obligation than a chance to ease a terribly guilty conscience. Another irritating trait in the script is its use of language. The sequences of Amir’s youth are told in dialects spoken in Kabul (a brave choice for a big studio-funded film). But makes makes it irritating when the characters switch back and forth between English and Middle Eastern dialects in Amir’s adulthood. Characters start conversation in their native languages, then switch to English when important points must be made.
Director Marc Forster retains the interesting visual eye he displayed in FINDING NEVERLAND and STRANGER THAN FICTION, but it sometimes causes the film to feel like a family-friendly look at life in the Middle East. There is danger there, but the true horrors seem skirted around. In some instances, the restraint shown works quite well (and is quite necessary), but most everything else remains curiously bright and cheery. It reflects the mindset of the young boys early in the film, and it works there; this is mainly because of the spirited and heartwarming performances from Ebrahimi and Mahmidzada. Some of the technical work is spotty as well; though the kite tournament is vibrantly rendered via CGI, the all-computerized shots of the kites flying and the live action shots of the children on the ground never really connect, and the film looses the sense of excitement it should have. Alberto Iglesias’s score is an oddity; starting off melodic and evocative but quickly turning overbearing and terribly orchestrated.
The filmmakers likely assumed that the popularity of the book would guarantee them a success, and that was their first mistake. It has happened many times with high-profile literary adaptations; not enough care is put into making it an actual film. The chief problem here is the screenplay, which does not adequately describe the characters and their emotions. Oh sure, they say how they feel, but a viewer can handle only so many heavy-handed speeches with statements about life we’ve heard before. There is some joy and truth to be found in THE KITE RUNNER, but it is not nearly as effective as its source.
**1/2/****
Saturday, December 15, 2007
I Am Legend
It’s a story that’s been told many times before, yet always seems to get the shaft in its purest form. Richard Matheson’s famed novel I AM LEGEND gets its third big-screen treatment (following 1964’s THE LAST MAN ON EARTH and 1971’s THE OMEGA MAN). This time around, the original work has been fused with a 28 DAYS LATER-type bent, removing the vampiric creatures of the original and replacing them with frenzied, zombie-like beings. But although the film does take many brave turns and unusual choices, it ends up as nothing more than a really expensive slim horror movie.
Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the last surviving man in New York. Three years after an outbreak of a virus aimed to cure diseases, most of human civilization has been wiped out. Only a small portion survive, and most of those have been mutated into animalistic creatures who ruthlessly feed on all forms of life and are allergic to sunlight. (Basically, as explained in a brief prologue and a few flashbacks, Emma Thompson kills us all). Now Neville is alone in New York, which has become overgrown with wildlife. He leads an empty existence; interacting only with his dog while desperately trying to find a cure for the virus. His desperation begins to increase as time goes on, and Neville notices that the creatures are becoming more violent and less hesitant to shield themselves from the sun. After capturing a creature for study, he angers the apparent New Yorkian king of the creatures and they begin to attack.
Much of the film is Smith by himself, silent except for the occasional remark to the dog. The portions of him roaming through the deserted New York are stunningly rendered; the overgrown grass in Times Square, the slow decay of the empty skyscrapers, every bit of the city is shocking and downright eerie. The filmmakers haven’t skipped a step in this regard; even the billboards are rendered time-appropriate (including an ad for a huge superhero pic due in May 2010, so get ready folks). How disappointing it is to learn, then, that director Francis Lawrence (2005’s CONSTANTINE) did not show this amount of care throughout the whole film. The most crippling flaw in the entire thing is the creatures themselves. Obviously rendered completely through CGI, they never become truly terrifying because they never look real. It suffers when compared to recent films like 28 DAYS LATER, which clearly inspired the look of this film. Sure, when they jump out from around a corner screaming the audience is startled, but there are many more effective ways of scaring people.
That’s not to say there isn’t anything else to admire. Smith gives one of his better performances to date, and certainly the most focused. Gone is the grin-filled easygoing humor he displays in all his other films, a trait with often undercuts certain dramatic aspirations. The biggest laughs here are nothing more than amused chuckles and Smith really triumphs in the dramatic scenes. The slow-building paranoia, desperation and loneliness that seeps into his behavior is uncomfortable and sometimes painful to watch, in a good way. It seems odd to happen in a film like I AM LEGEND, but here Smith finally proves that he has what it takes to become a great dramatic actor.
In the end, the film is a mixed experience. There are admirable qualities, but the failings become glaringly obvious as the film comes to a close. The finale in particular will be maddening to some, straying far from Matheson’s novel. But it is to be expected in a big-budget Hollywood film in this day and age and the filmmakers likely placed commercial success over artistic bravery. I AM LEGEND is worth seeing for its stunning opening scenes and for Smith’s complex performance, but those seeking that level of complexity on all counts will be disappointed.
**/****
Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the last surviving man in New York. Three years after an outbreak of a virus aimed to cure diseases, most of human civilization has been wiped out. Only a small portion survive, and most of those have been mutated into animalistic creatures who ruthlessly feed on all forms of life and are allergic to sunlight. (Basically, as explained in a brief prologue and a few flashbacks, Emma Thompson kills us all). Now Neville is alone in New York, which has become overgrown with wildlife. He leads an empty existence; interacting only with his dog while desperately trying to find a cure for the virus. His desperation begins to increase as time goes on, and Neville notices that the creatures are becoming more violent and less hesitant to shield themselves from the sun. After capturing a creature for study, he angers the apparent New Yorkian king of the creatures and they begin to attack.
Much of the film is Smith by himself, silent except for the occasional remark to the dog. The portions of him roaming through the deserted New York are stunningly rendered; the overgrown grass in Times Square, the slow decay of the empty skyscrapers, every bit of the city is shocking and downright eerie. The filmmakers haven’t skipped a step in this regard; even the billboards are rendered time-appropriate (including an ad for a huge superhero pic due in May 2010, so get ready folks). How disappointing it is to learn, then, that director Francis Lawrence (2005’s CONSTANTINE) did not show this amount of care throughout the whole film. The most crippling flaw in the entire thing is the creatures themselves. Obviously rendered completely through CGI, they never become truly terrifying because they never look real. It suffers when compared to recent films like 28 DAYS LATER, which clearly inspired the look of this film. Sure, when they jump out from around a corner screaming the audience is startled, but there are many more effective ways of scaring people.
That’s not to say there isn’t anything else to admire. Smith gives one of his better performances to date, and certainly the most focused. Gone is the grin-filled easygoing humor he displays in all his other films, a trait with often undercuts certain dramatic aspirations. The biggest laughs here are nothing more than amused chuckles and Smith really triumphs in the dramatic scenes. The slow-building paranoia, desperation and loneliness that seeps into his behavior is uncomfortable and sometimes painful to watch, in a good way. It seems odd to happen in a film like I AM LEGEND, but here Smith finally proves that he has what it takes to become a great dramatic actor.
In the end, the film is a mixed experience. There are admirable qualities, but the failings become glaringly obvious as the film comes to a close. The finale in particular will be maddening to some, straying far from Matheson’s novel. But it is to be expected in a big-budget Hollywood film in this day and age and the filmmakers likely placed commercial success over artistic bravery. I AM LEGEND is worth seeing for its stunning opening scenes and for Smith’s complex performance, but those seeking that level of complexity on all counts will be disappointed.
**/****
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Juno
Diablo Cody makes an admirably heartfelt and genuinely funny screenwriting debut with JUNO, a tween pregnancy comedy that masterfully walks the line between self-parody and real emotion. Directed by THANK YOU FOR SMOKING’s Jason Reitman and featuring some of the most compelling (and most surprising) performances of the year, the film manages to be cute without cloying and dramatic without plodding.
It all starts with a chair. When a sarcastic and laid-back 16-year-old (Juno, played by Ellen Page) discovers she’s pregnant, her first thought is to get an abortion. Yet when she finds herself unable to through with the operation because, among other things, the clinic smells like a dentist’s office, she decides to do the decent thing: give the baby up for adoption. Enter Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), the upper-middle-class yuppie couple who want to adopt but have had bad past experiences. And as Juno’s pregnancy develops, she finds herself thinking more and more about the baby’s father, a dorky track runner (Michael Cera) with an unusual fondness for Tic Tacs.
The film’s strength lies in its performances, and most importantly Page’s portrayal of the titular character. Juno is sarcastic but not unlikable; she fully accepts her faults and mistakes, and the viewer cannot help but do the same. She is a modern teen in every way; ready to dismiss the words of her elders with a disinterested roll of the eyes. Yet she has a maturity that develops along with the baby. As Juno gains a more worldly wise view of those around her, she becomes all the more compelling. Page has put in noteworthy work in lesser films (HARD CANDY, X-MEN 3), but it is JUNO that people will remember her for. But Page does not put in the only memorable performance; solid work is done by all, and there isn’t a weak link in the cast.
Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner especially come as a surprise. As the adoptive parents-to-be, both delve into previously untapped area in their ranges. While Bateman still relies on his charming, staring-in-disbelief comedic timing, his more dramatic scenes display an uncertainty and reluctance that resonates far past the words he speaks. Garner is a revelation here. The dramatic work she’s done on ALIAS only hints at the multilayered performance she gives her. Her desperation that shows even through her strict reticence is often heartbreaking; the flaws in her character are apparent, yet her strive for the end goal makes all her fussing filled with fright instead of superficiality.
Cody’s smart and snappy script successfully balances comedy and drama. At first insistent on teen slang (almost annoyingly so), the true measure of Cody’s accomplishment becomes apparent later in the film, when the drama rings truer than most comedies of its type. Yet it never becomes bogged down in the dramatics; by the time it turns away from total comedy, the viewer is already too invested in the characters to be lost. But Cody and Reitman realize how important comedy is in such serious situations. Like Juno herself, they never let things get too serious. There’s always something to laugh at just around the corner.
***1/2/****
It all starts with a chair. When a sarcastic and laid-back 16-year-old (Juno, played by Ellen Page) discovers she’s pregnant, her first thought is to get an abortion. Yet when she finds herself unable to through with the operation because, among other things, the clinic smells like a dentist’s office, she decides to do the decent thing: give the baby up for adoption. Enter Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner), the upper-middle-class yuppie couple who want to adopt but have had bad past experiences. And as Juno’s pregnancy develops, she finds herself thinking more and more about the baby’s father, a dorky track runner (Michael Cera) with an unusual fondness for Tic Tacs.
The film’s strength lies in its performances, and most importantly Page’s portrayal of the titular character. Juno is sarcastic but not unlikable; she fully accepts her faults and mistakes, and the viewer cannot help but do the same. She is a modern teen in every way; ready to dismiss the words of her elders with a disinterested roll of the eyes. Yet she has a maturity that develops along with the baby. As Juno gains a more worldly wise view of those around her, she becomes all the more compelling. Page has put in noteworthy work in lesser films (HARD CANDY, X-MEN 3), but it is JUNO that people will remember her for. But Page does not put in the only memorable performance; solid work is done by all, and there isn’t a weak link in the cast.
Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner especially come as a surprise. As the adoptive parents-to-be, both delve into previously untapped area in their ranges. While Bateman still relies on his charming, staring-in-disbelief comedic timing, his more dramatic scenes display an uncertainty and reluctance that resonates far past the words he speaks. Garner is a revelation here. The dramatic work she’s done on ALIAS only hints at the multilayered performance she gives her. Her desperation that shows even through her strict reticence is often heartbreaking; the flaws in her character are apparent, yet her strive for the end goal makes all her fussing filled with fright instead of superficiality.
Cody’s smart and snappy script successfully balances comedy and drama. At first insistent on teen slang (almost annoyingly so), the true measure of Cody’s accomplishment becomes apparent later in the film, when the drama rings truer than most comedies of its type. Yet it never becomes bogged down in the dramatics; by the time it turns away from total comedy, the viewer is already too invested in the characters to be lost. But Cody and Reitman realize how important comedy is in such serious situations. Like Juno herself, they never let things get too serious. There’s always something to laugh at just around the corner.
***1/2/****
Monday, December 10, 2007
Atonement
Ian McEwan’s bestselling novel ATONEMENT was a work so completely absorbed in language and writing that a successful cinematic adaptation seemed unlikely. Yet in the hands of director Joe Wright (of 2005’s delightful PRIDE AND PREJUDICE) and Oscar-winning screenwriter Christopher Hampton, the film arrives with its messages largely in tact, if slightly less subtle than before. Still, the film is quite an achievement; sumptuously and carefully designed and admirably performed by its actors.
The decade-spanning story begins on a hot 1935 summer day in the middle of the English countryside. Young Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) is a would-be writer who’s just completed a play to celebrate the return of her older brother. As she tries to wrangle her younger cousins into rehearsals, she spots her sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) apparently arguing with the housekeeper’s son Robbie (James McAvoy). Later, Robbie asks Briony to deliver a graphic confession to Cecilia. Matters only get worse when Briony spots the two making love in the library. When Briony spots her cousin being assaulted by a man, she tells police Robbie is the culprit, and he is taken away. Four years later, the world is embroiled in World War II and Robbie is drafted into service. As he wanders aimlessly through hundreds of deserted troops trying to fulfill his promise to return to Cecilia, 18-year-old Briony (Romola Garai) is now a nurse and just beginning to realize the effect she’s had. Did she actually see what she said she saw, or did her childish mind misunderstand how her words would affect the son of a servant?
Thanks to Wright’s careful direction, part of ATONEMENT’s fascination is the intricate design. This is most apparent in Dario Marianelli’s luscious score that bridges the gap between diegetic and non-diegetic sound in a way never seen before; the music perfectly layers in the sounds of a typewriter, soldiers singing and playing harmonicas. A great deal of the film’s effectiveness comes from the wrenching music. The cinematography is equally impressive; the sun-drenched images of the beginning create a mood of intense heat without losing beauty. Wright favors long, often stunning tracking shots, culminating in a nearly six minute long take surveying the horror and tragedy of retreat. It is one of the most stunning films of the year aesthetically.
The entire film relies on what Briony saw; more and more of what really happened is revealed as the character ages. It culminates in a devastating revelation from Briony in her later years, where she is portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave in a mesmerizing performance that is sadly not much more than a glorified cameo. The finale of the film will determine how the viewer sees the entire product; not just the final scene, but all that came before it as well. It is a risky choice, but Wright and Hampton made the best decision in keeping it exactly as it is. They must have known the revelation would lose viewers, but that increases the film’s effectiveness. The characterization of Briony is the film’s other key to success, and maybe the most fascinating aspect of it. Each actress carries the character through in an astonishing level of connection; Ronan’s Briony lays the foundation, Garai’s Briony builds on that and finally Redgrave’s Briony brings it all to a tragic close. Everything, from hairstyle to dress to facial imperfections to vocal inflection is impressively identical. Though all three actresses are uniformly excellent, it is Garai who stands out the most. Portraying the Briony that comes of emotional age, both to her past and to the violence around her, Garai is endlessly fascinating. Hers is a quiet, subtle portrayal; one that stays with the viewer long after the film is over.
Unfortunately, the characters other than Briony do not make much of an impact. Most disappointing are Robbie and Cecilia, the doomed lovers highlighted in the film’s marketing. This is no fault of the actors; both McAvoy and Knightley give solid performances, and in McAvoy’s case, often compelling. Yet they are not the main characters of the story, and when the film focuses solely on Robbie for an extended amount, the pace begins to drag. And unlike her triumphant performance in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Knightley is not given much to do besides look beautiful and silently brooding (and smoking). Robbie and Cecilia make an adequately tragic couple, but their circumstances are less than compelling when Briony is nowhere to be found.
Wright and company have done more than an adequate job in adapting a tricky work onto the screen. Those unfamiliar with the work (and even some who are familiar with it) will either be blown away or left in the cold. ATONEMENT is a compelling study in what makes truth and what makes honesty. And as the film makes very clear, the two terms are not necessarily one in the same.
***1/2/****
The decade-spanning story begins on a hot 1935 summer day in the middle of the English countryside. Young Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) is a would-be writer who’s just completed a play to celebrate the return of her older brother. As she tries to wrangle her younger cousins into rehearsals, she spots her sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley) apparently arguing with the housekeeper’s son Robbie (James McAvoy). Later, Robbie asks Briony to deliver a graphic confession to Cecilia. Matters only get worse when Briony spots the two making love in the library. When Briony spots her cousin being assaulted by a man, she tells police Robbie is the culprit, and he is taken away. Four years later, the world is embroiled in World War II and Robbie is drafted into service. As he wanders aimlessly through hundreds of deserted troops trying to fulfill his promise to return to Cecilia, 18-year-old Briony (Romola Garai) is now a nurse and just beginning to realize the effect she’s had. Did she actually see what she said she saw, or did her childish mind misunderstand how her words would affect the son of a servant?
Thanks to Wright’s careful direction, part of ATONEMENT’s fascination is the intricate design. This is most apparent in Dario Marianelli’s luscious score that bridges the gap between diegetic and non-diegetic sound in a way never seen before; the music perfectly layers in the sounds of a typewriter, soldiers singing and playing harmonicas. A great deal of the film’s effectiveness comes from the wrenching music. The cinematography is equally impressive; the sun-drenched images of the beginning create a mood of intense heat without losing beauty. Wright favors long, often stunning tracking shots, culminating in a nearly six minute long take surveying the horror and tragedy of retreat. It is one of the most stunning films of the year aesthetically.
The entire film relies on what Briony saw; more and more of what really happened is revealed as the character ages. It culminates in a devastating revelation from Briony in her later years, where she is portrayed by Vanessa Redgrave in a mesmerizing performance that is sadly not much more than a glorified cameo. The finale of the film will determine how the viewer sees the entire product; not just the final scene, but all that came before it as well. It is a risky choice, but Wright and Hampton made the best decision in keeping it exactly as it is. They must have known the revelation would lose viewers, but that increases the film’s effectiveness. The characterization of Briony is the film’s other key to success, and maybe the most fascinating aspect of it. Each actress carries the character through in an astonishing level of connection; Ronan’s Briony lays the foundation, Garai’s Briony builds on that and finally Redgrave’s Briony brings it all to a tragic close. Everything, from hairstyle to dress to facial imperfections to vocal inflection is impressively identical. Though all three actresses are uniformly excellent, it is Garai who stands out the most. Portraying the Briony that comes of emotional age, both to her past and to the violence around her, Garai is endlessly fascinating. Hers is a quiet, subtle portrayal; one that stays with the viewer long after the film is over.
Unfortunately, the characters other than Briony do not make much of an impact. Most disappointing are Robbie and Cecilia, the doomed lovers highlighted in the film’s marketing. This is no fault of the actors; both McAvoy and Knightley give solid performances, and in McAvoy’s case, often compelling. Yet they are not the main characters of the story, and when the film focuses solely on Robbie for an extended amount, the pace begins to drag. And unlike her triumphant performance in PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, Knightley is not given much to do besides look beautiful and silently brooding (and smoking). Robbie and Cecilia make an adequately tragic couple, but their circumstances are less than compelling when Briony is nowhere to be found.
Wright and company have done more than an adequate job in adapting a tricky work onto the screen. Those unfamiliar with the work (and even some who are familiar with it) will either be blown away or left in the cold. ATONEMENT is a compelling study in what makes truth and what makes honesty. And as the film makes very clear, the two terms are not necessarily one in the same.
***1/2/****
Saturday, December 8, 2007
The Golden Compass
Clearly wishing to find a successor to their LORD OF THE RINGS films, New Line Cinema has graced us with THE GOLDEN COMPASS, the first in the successful and controversial HIS DARK MATERIALS trilogy by Philip Pullman. Known to many for its oft-discussed views on religion, anyone walking into the film must be curious as to how the filmmakers would present such a work on screen in today’s society, which is so touchy about religion. The answer is as carefully as possible, setting as many of the big issues aside for the assumed sequels. The result is mixed, showcasing a few set pieces between a lot of rushed talk and breezed-through set up.
The film serves as an introduction to a world parallel to our own, where a person’s soul is represented by an animal being, daemons, that moves beside them. Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards) is an orphan student at Jordan College, placed there by her powerful uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig). While spying on a meeting led by him, Lyra learns of the “dust”; particles that attach a human to their daemon and stretch into alternate worlds. Asriel seeks to travel to the North Pole in an attempt to bride universes, but the Magisterium (headed by a man with a dorky comb-over and clichéd wide-eyed suspicious glares) declaims such acts as heresy. Meanwhile, Lyra is drafted into the employ of Mrs. Coulter (a wonderfully icy Nicole Kidman), a woman whose motives may not be all they seem. Before departing the school Lyra is given an Alethiometer, a truth-telling compass outlawed by the Magisterium. Lyra soon hears her school friends are being kidnapped, and as her suspicion against Mrs. Coulter mounts, she decided to take manners into her own hands. Along the way she drafts a cowboy-like air pilot (Sam Elliot) and a gigantic polar bear into her envoy as well as interacting with the mysterious witches (led by Eva Green).
It sounds like a lot of plot, and indeed it is. THE GOLDEN COMPASS races from one important point to another, leaving no time in between for a breather. It acts as a 101 course to Pullman’s world; most of the scenes involve someone sitting Lyra down and explaining things. The viewer is talked at almost relentlessly; something that becomes rather irritating in a film that proclaimed to be an epic adventure. It doesn’t help that the action sequences are far too short; any set piece doesn’t last longer than five minutes, if that. It really is a shame, as they start off so promising. A fight between two (wonderfully rendered) polar bears is particularly exciting, though its knock-out ending cuts the action off abruptly. Particularly frustrating is the film’s finale, which tries to wrap things up too quickly to leave the viewer with a warm, fuzzy feeling.
As said, the source’s more controversial points have been severely eased. Anyone coming into the film without prior knowledge would find the film’s stance against the Magisterium to be a mild attack on the current government, and nothing more. The entire situation is very vague; sure, they’re villains, but no one really explains why, other than a few “well, they’ve kinda done this” statements. Writer/director Chris Weitz was clearly frightened about how he was going to present the material. But unfortunately, the most controversial material is yet to come, should the other books be adapted.
Still, there are aspects to admire. The film is dazzling to behold; the film reportedly cost around $200 million to produce, and it shows. Every aspect of the technical design is impeccably rendered, especially the film’s extensive visual effects. The viewer may not be fully attentive through the whole film, but everything sure does look pretty. Add to that several admirable performances, particularly from Richards and Kidman. As Lyra, Richards brings a smart, assured portrayal; her almost otherworldly face perfectly brings us into a level of fantasy. And though she is crippled with limited screen time, Kidman is at once seductive and menacing. Her face and eyes move from grace to ferocity in the blink of an eye, making her Mrs. Coulter a villain of the most memorable kind: the kind that befriend you before showing their true faces.
THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a promising start to a new series; there are improvements that can be made, but the biggest challenges are yet to come. But in today’s age, “just all right” will not be enough. The filmmakers have serious ground to make up, should the sequels be made. Weitz will have to show more bravery in dealing with the material, which will remain controversial no matter how much he waters it down. But the film is still enjoyable, and sure to be a favorite among fantasy film fans. It still works, just not as well as it should.
**/****
The film serves as an introduction to a world parallel to our own, where a person’s soul is represented by an animal being, daemons, that moves beside them. Lyra (newcomer Dakota Blue Richards) is an orphan student at Jordan College, placed there by her powerful uncle Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig). While spying on a meeting led by him, Lyra learns of the “dust”; particles that attach a human to their daemon and stretch into alternate worlds. Asriel seeks to travel to the North Pole in an attempt to bride universes, but the Magisterium (headed by a man with a dorky comb-over and clichéd wide-eyed suspicious glares) declaims such acts as heresy. Meanwhile, Lyra is drafted into the employ of Mrs. Coulter (a wonderfully icy Nicole Kidman), a woman whose motives may not be all they seem. Before departing the school Lyra is given an Alethiometer, a truth-telling compass outlawed by the Magisterium. Lyra soon hears her school friends are being kidnapped, and as her suspicion against Mrs. Coulter mounts, she decided to take manners into her own hands. Along the way she drafts a cowboy-like air pilot (Sam Elliot) and a gigantic polar bear into her envoy as well as interacting with the mysterious witches (led by Eva Green).
It sounds like a lot of plot, and indeed it is. THE GOLDEN COMPASS races from one important point to another, leaving no time in between for a breather. It acts as a 101 course to Pullman’s world; most of the scenes involve someone sitting Lyra down and explaining things. The viewer is talked at almost relentlessly; something that becomes rather irritating in a film that proclaimed to be an epic adventure. It doesn’t help that the action sequences are far too short; any set piece doesn’t last longer than five minutes, if that. It really is a shame, as they start off so promising. A fight between two (wonderfully rendered) polar bears is particularly exciting, though its knock-out ending cuts the action off abruptly. Particularly frustrating is the film’s finale, which tries to wrap things up too quickly to leave the viewer with a warm, fuzzy feeling.
As said, the source’s more controversial points have been severely eased. Anyone coming into the film without prior knowledge would find the film’s stance against the Magisterium to be a mild attack on the current government, and nothing more. The entire situation is very vague; sure, they’re villains, but no one really explains why, other than a few “well, they’ve kinda done this” statements. Writer/director Chris Weitz was clearly frightened about how he was going to present the material. But unfortunately, the most controversial material is yet to come, should the other books be adapted.
Still, there are aspects to admire. The film is dazzling to behold; the film reportedly cost around $200 million to produce, and it shows. Every aspect of the technical design is impeccably rendered, especially the film’s extensive visual effects. The viewer may not be fully attentive through the whole film, but everything sure does look pretty. Add to that several admirable performances, particularly from Richards and Kidman. As Lyra, Richards brings a smart, assured portrayal; her almost otherworldly face perfectly brings us into a level of fantasy. And though she is crippled with limited screen time, Kidman is at once seductive and menacing. Her face and eyes move from grace to ferocity in the blink of an eye, making her Mrs. Coulter a villain of the most memorable kind: the kind that befriend you before showing their true faces.
THE GOLDEN COMPASS is a promising start to a new series; there are improvements that can be made, but the biggest challenges are yet to come. But in today’s age, “just all right” will not be enough. The filmmakers have serious ground to make up, should the sequels be made. Weitz will have to show more bravery in dealing with the material, which will remain controversial no matter how much he waters it down. But the film is still enjoyable, and sure to be a favorite among fantasy film fans. It still works, just not as well as it should.
**/****
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Ever since its legendary original production in 1979, SWEENEY TODD has been heralded as one of the great masterpieces of musical theatre. Rumblings of a film adaptation have been circulating for years, with directorial duties signed to Tim Burton in the late 90s and Sam Mendes earlier this decade. For a while, there were rumors of Russell Crowe making his directorial debut with the film. Now it has finally arrived, back in Burton’s hands, perhaps the ones best equipped to handle such a piece. SWEENEY TODD will likely come to be known as Burton’s best film, one where his penchant for visuals finally coincides completely with a satisfying story.
Returning to London years after being imprisoned and sent away, master barber Benjamin Barker, now calling himself Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp), returns to his former shop in hopes of finding his wife and daughter waiting for him. Instead he finds Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), an untalented pie maker whose shop lies below his. She tells him his wife is gone and the judge who sentenced Todd now keeps his daughter. Incensed with fury, Todd vows to get revenge on those who destroyed his family. And he will complete this the best way he knows how; through his skills with a razor.
The material is already filled with the kind of dark macabre humor that Burton is so fond of, and he clearly relishes in it. Every last bit of the film is intricately designed: the art direction and costume design bring Burton’s vision of period London beautifully to life. The masterful production work here is enhanced by Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography. The nighttime images lit seemingly by flames alone send chills down the spine. The color saturation is also something to behold. The film is awash in a colorless world save for a few items; occasional pieces of clothing, a side-splitting trip to the sea with Mrs. Lovett and, most importantly, the blood. Much has been made of the film’s gruesomeness, and it is indeed gory; the violence only gets worse as Todd’s victims begin to pile up. But it never feels out of place; the blood drips like paint, almost glowing in relation to the rest of the image. The violence is meant to make the viewer squirm, and Burton sells that point. It is meant to make you laugh, not scream.
Longtime Burton collaborator Depp contributes another fantastic performance, more layered and affecting than his other recent roles. His Todd is gaunt, single-minded and frightened; viewers will not be trying to guess which figures he’s based his characterization on his time. He successfully is alternately sympathetic and repulsive; his goals are cheered but the monster he becomes is terrifying. His distinctly rock-ish singing voice may not be the best suited for Stephen Sondheim’s score, but he delivers it with the utmost dedication. Like Depp, Helena Bonham Carter is clearly not a trained singer, but instead of ignoring it, she bases her Mrs. Lovett around her weak voice. She is a quiet, desperate woman yearning for companionship but scared to admit it. She imbues her lines with a wearied tone, displaying her sharp comic timing with perfect flat-faced delivery. She also arises much more sympathetic than other Mrs. Lovetts; some of her scenes, particularly ones with the child Toby (newcomer Ed Sanders) are heartbreaking. Together, Depp and Bonham Carter create a subdued couple, but one that works perfectly for the film.
This is the film Burton was born to direct, and he’s pulled it off magnificently. This is thanks in no small part to John Logan’s screenplay, one which is likely to be ignored, sadly. Large cuts have been made from the source, but the transitions are tightly crafted and it doesn’t feel like anything is missing. Even with the cuts, the film remains faithful to its source, sticking in images that will be familiar to fans of the original production. So often Burton has valued style over substance, leading to a handful of films that start off well before going downhill. SWEENEY TODD has none of that; it is compelling from start to finish, at times hilarious, heartbreaking and horrifying. Drawing strength from performances that embrace their performers’ flaws and adapt them, Burton’s film is a tremendous achievement. He has more than merely done justice to the material. The film could not come any better. This could very well be the greatest work Burton has ever done.
****/****
Returning to London years after being imprisoned and sent away, master barber Benjamin Barker, now calling himself Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp), returns to his former shop in hopes of finding his wife and daughter waiting for him. Instead he finds Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), an untalented pie maker whose shop lies below his. She tells him his wife is gone and the judge who sentenced Todd now keeps his daughter. Incensed with fury, Todd vows to get revenge on those who destroyed his family. And he will complete this the best way he knows how; through his skills with a razor.
The material is already filled with the kind of dark macabre humor that Burton is so fond of, and he clearly relishes in it. Every last bit of the film is intricately designed: the art direction and costume design bring Burton’s vision of period London beautifully to life. The masterful production work here is enhanced by Dariusz Wolski’s cinematography. The nighttime images lit seemingly by flames alone send chills down the spine. The color saturation is also something to behold. The film is awash in a colorless world save for a few items; occasional pieces of clothing, a side-splitting trip to the sea with Mrs. Lovett and, most importantly, the blood. Much has been made of the film’s gruesomeness, and it is indeed gory; the violence only gets worse as Todd’s victims begin to pile up. But it never feels out of place; the blood drips like paint, almost glowing in relation to the rest of the image. The violence is meant to make the viewer squirm, and Burton sells that point. It is meant to make you laugh, not scream.
Longtime Burton collaborator Depp contributes another fantastic performance, more layered and affecting than his other recent roles. His Todd is gaunt, single-minded and frightened; viewers will not be trying to guess which figures he’s based his characterization on his time. He successfully is alternately sympathetic and repulsive; his goals are cheered but the monster he becomes is terrifying. His distinctly rock-ish singing voice may not be the best suited for Stephen Sondheim’s score, but he delivers it with the utmost dedication. Like Depp, Helena Bonham Carter is clearly not a trained singer, but instead of ignoring it, she bases her Mrs. Lovett around her weak voice. She is a quiet, desperate woman yearning for companionship but scared to admit it. She imbues her lines with a wearied tone, displaying her sharp comic timing with perfect flat-faced delivery. She also arises much more sympathetic than other Mrs. Lovetts; some of her scenes, particularly ones with the child Toby (newcomer Ed Sanders) are heartbreaking. Together, Depp and Bonham Carter create a subdued couple, but one that works perfectly for the film.
This is the film Burton was born to direct, and he’s pulled it off magnificently. This is thanks in no small part to John Logan’s screenplay, one which is likely to be ignored, sadly. Large cuts have been made from the source, but the transitions are tightly crafted and it doesn’t feel like anything is missing. Even with the cuts, the film remains faithful to its source, sticking in images that will be familiar to fans of the original production. So often Burton has valued style over substance, leading to a handful of films that start off well before going downhill. SWEENEY TODD has none of that; it is compelling from start to finish, at times hilarious, heartbreaking and horrifying. Drawing strength from performances that embrace their performers’ flaws and adapt them, Burton’s film is a tremendous achievement. He has more than merely done justice to the material. The film could not come any better. This could very well be the greatest work Burton has ever done.
****/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)