No doubt hoping to recapture the success of his 2005 thriller MATCH POINT, legendary writer/director Woody Allen returns with CASSANDRA’S DREAM, a family thriller that is slight but manages to be entertaining if one is willing to accept several lapses in common sense or reason. It doesn’t rank with Allen’s best by any means, but thanks to some intriguing performances, the film manages to stay just barely on the good side of melodramatic.
Two working class London brothers Ian and Terry (Scottish Ewan McGregor and Irish Colin Farrell) have just found the sailboat of their dreams. Thanks to a prolonged stroke of luck at cards and at the dogtrack, Terry is able to secure the money and “Cassandra’s Dream” becomes theirs. Both brothers are barely able to survive financially; Terry works as a mechanic when not betting or drinking and Ian finds himself arranging numerous business ventures while keeping an eye on his father’s failing restaurant. Both are constantly reminded of what could be when they talk about their Uncle Howard (Tom Wilkinson), an extremely successful plastic surgeon. But soon Terry’s gambling catches up with them and Ian is caught up with a beautiful young actress (newcomer Hayley Atwell), and both are in desperate need of money. Uncle Howard will solve all their financial problems, if they do a favor for him in return. He’s come under investigation, and some old partners of his need taking care of.
Much like MATCH POINT, there is a crime involved and the psychological complications that result. But where the inadequacies in planning and production of the act were tantalizing in the former film, here they just feel like carelessness. Even the set-up of the plot has glaringly obvious complications. But if the viewer is willing to accept these faults, the film becomes much more enjoyable. After all, the point of the film appears to be irony (the word itself is muttered many times), maybe it’s all part of Allen’s master plan. Indeed, so many integral plot points veer between laziness in writing and execution and apparent intentional stupidity. Yet as the film winds down to its close, it becomes more focused on family (the other big point of the film) and it is all the better for it. The final sequence, though plagued by a disappointing “tell-don’t-show” epilogue, is the most suspenseful part of the film by far.
There are some very intriguing aspects to the film, things one might not find in a Woody Allen. Most noticeable is its original score by Philip Glass, a rarity for an Allen film. The score adds a great deal of suspense to the proceedings, and ranks among Glass’s finest compositions for the screen. And for once, no one takes on the “Woody Allen” role- there are no comically neurotic characters stuttering over every word. Unfortunately, this leads to a parade of endlessly serious people, so the absence of the wannabe neurotic is a mixed blessing. Allen’s once unmatchable dialogue also sputters and falters here; this may be the only film you see this year where two adults describe having sex as “doing it”. But the film is performed admirably on all counts, minus Colin Farrell’s tendency to overact (only when he is speaking, of course). Most intriguing are the film’s lead actresses, newcomer Atwell and the charming Sally Hawkins as Terry’s girlfriend. Both are relegated to strictly supporting roles and are sadly two-dimensional. Yet they craft the most complex portrayals, and the viewer often longs for their appearance.
Allen still appears to be riding on his newfound wave of creativity that began with MATCH POINT. Though it is far from perfect, compare CASSANDRA’S DREAM to CURSE OF THE JADE SCORPION or ANYTHING ELSE and you’ll find a world of difference. It’s an entertaining little thriller, one that could definitely have used some improvements, but is fine enough as it is. This type of story has been told before, likely more effectively. Yet for Allen’s fans, there’s always something special to find.
**/****
Friday, January 25, 2008
Friday, January 18, 2008
Cloverfield
A surefire marketing campaign ongoing for months has already insured producer J.J. Abrams’s disaster film CLOVERFIELD’s initial success; most of its audience will likely know next to nothing about the actual film before seeing it. In this day and age that is a feat in itself, but does CLOVERFIELD live up to the hype? The answer is mostly yes. Taking the hand-camera “realism” popularized with THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and pushing it to the highest possible level, the film puts the viewer in the characters’ shoes as never before and it sticks strictly to that code, which is one of its biggest assets. CLOVERFIELD is all about being in the moment and doesn’t waste time with answers, all leading up to one hell of a thrillride.
The film, shot entirely from the P.O.V. of a camcorder, starts off casually (and boringly) enough; a farewell party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who’s about to take an important job in Japan. But, as is required when large groups of attractive twentysomethings come together, there is drama; the meeting between Rob and his true love Beth (Odette Yustman) is their first since their one-night-stand weeks ago and she storms out early in the party. Only a few moments later, Manhattan is shaken with what appears to be an earthquake. A few firebolts and one flying Statue of Liberty head later, the partygoers realize there’s something attacking the city. They make to flee, but Rob gets a call from Beth; she’s hurt and only he can save her. So Rob, along with four other friends venture back into the city to find Beth and outrun the terrifying presence stalking the city.
The filmmakers seemed to hold realism above all else; there are jumps in the tape during explosions, cuts to earlier shot footage when the camera is turned off and all the shakiness a stomach can handle. The film’s many visual effects (such as the now instantly-recognizable flying statue head) are integrated into the handheld footage incredibly well. Many of the film’s most effective scares come from how well the effects fit in with the real action, a strength only emphasized by the failure of films like THE MIST to do so in the past. Match this with the intricate and masterful sound work done here and you’ve got yourself a genuine experience. What is heard is just as important as what is seen, and since the images are often too shaky to be clear, what we hear is our only clue to what is happening. While not much can be said about the film without spoiling something, it is indeed very tense and, at times, genuinely frightening.
Despite all its strength, there were a few nagging flaws that detracted from the whole. For a film that strived for as much realism as possible, there certainly are a lot of coincidences. The characters just seem to happen upon every major event in the attack on the city, from the Statue of Liberty’s head landing on their street to, well, everything else. The camera operator, aside from being emotionally stunted (sticking in tired jokes whenever he can), must have had his hand glued to the camera. A reason for filming everything is given early on- “people will want to see how it all went down”- but still. The film prides itself on realism so much, showing its characters as archetypes of what anyone would do in such a situation, but it seems much more likely that any extra objects slowing people down (such as the camera) would be dumped after a while, under the circumstances.
But still, CLOVERFIELD accomplishes what most horror films cannot do these days; manage to be decent. In fact, it’s much more than decent. It may be the most effective horror film to come out in quite some time. Unrelenting and unforgiving, it will keep audiences in perpetual terror once it gets going. While its end result may leave some cold and unaffected, its power during the heart of the film is undeniable. In the end, it’s nothing revolutionary, but it does push boundaries and succeeds quite nicely.
***/****
The film, shot entirely from the P.O.V. of a camcorder, starts off casually (and boringly) enough; a farewell party for Rob (Michael Stahl-David), who’s about to take an important job in Japan. But, as is required when large groups of attractive twentysomethings come together, there is drama; the meeting between Rob and his true love Beth (Odette Yustman) is their first since their one-night-stand weeks ago and she storms out early in the party. Only a few moments later, Manhattan is shaken with what appears to be an earthquake. A few firebolts and one flying Statue of Liberty head later, the partygoers realize there’s something attacking the city. They make to flee, but Rob gets a call from Beth; she’s hurt and only he can save her. So Rob, along with four other friends venture back into the city to find Beth and outrun the terrifying presence stalking the city.
The filmmakers seemed to hold realism above all else; there are jumps in the tape during explosions, cuts to earlier shot footage when the camera is turned off and all the shakiness a stomach can handle. The film’s many visual effects (such as the now instantly-recognizable flying statue head) are integrated into the handheld footage incredibly well. Many of the film’s most effective scares come from how well the effects fit in with the real action, a strength only emphasized by the failure of films like THE MIST to do so in the past. Match this with the intricate and masterful sound work done here and you’ve got yourself a genuine experience. What is heard is just as important as what is seen, and since the images are often too shaky to be clear, what we hear is our only clue to what is happening. While not much can be said about the film without spoiling something, it is indeed very tense and, at times, genuinely frightening.
Despite all its strength, there were a few nagging flaws that detracted from the whole. For a film that strived for as much realism as possible, there certainly are a lot of coincidences. The characters just seem to happen upon every major event in the attack on the city, from the Statue of Liberty’s head landing on their street to, well, everything else. The camera operator, aside from being emotionally stunted (sticking in tired jokes whenever he can), must have had his hand glued to the camera. A reason for filming everything is given early on- “people will want to see how it all went down”- but still. The film prides itself on realism so much, showing its characters as archetypes of what anyone would do in such a situation, but it seems much more likely that any extra objects slowing people down (such as the camera) would be dumped after a while, under the circumstances.
But still, CLOVERFIELD accomplishes what most horror films cannot do these days; manage to be decent. In fact, it’s much more than decent. It may be the most effective horror film to come out in quite some time. Unrelenting and unforgiving, it will keep audiences in perpetual terror once it gets going. While its end result may leave some cold and unaffected, its power during the heart of the film is undeniable. In the end, it’s nothing revolutionary, but it does push boundaries and succeeds quite nicely.
***/****
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
There Will Be Blood
Most will agree that Daniel Day-Lewis is in the uppermost echelon of working actors today, if not the best. Unfortunately, he only appears every few years to appear in a film, so when he does it becomes a big deal. Couple his return to screens with the first Paul Thomas Anderson film since 2002’s underwhelming PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD becomes a must-see sight unseen. Inspired by the Upton Sinclair novel “Oil!”, Anderson’s film is an ambitious work that stretches his abilities as a writer and director, resulting in a piece that may surprise fans of BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA. It is a difficult film to like and the makers don’t do the viewer any favors, but it is an achievement to be respected nonetheless.
Oil man Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an unforgiving man moving from town to town, scavenging for oil wells. He works up from a small, single hand-made well in the middle of nowhere (entrancingly depicted in the film’s prologue, completely devoid of dialogue) to a sizable envoy of men. After receiving an enigmatic tip, Plainview and his young son H.W. (wide-eyed Dillon Fraser) travel to the small Sunday ranch in Little Boston, where Plainview finds “an ocean of oil” beneath their feet. Yet his giant success does not come easy; he finds an enemy in Sunday’s son, self-proclaimed healer and church leader Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who uses his power to sway members of the congregation for his own vanity and financial needs.
Plainview is not a likable person; in many cases, he is as corrupt and jaded as the film’s supposed villains. Yet Day-Lewis is completely mesmerizing, keeping the viewer enthralled by his sheer determinism and terrifying demeanor. In certain scenes, he emits such a ferocity without words that is truly frightening. As such, the film carries a great deal of suspense, automatically sending viewers into winces and shivers when Day-Lewis turns his eye to madness. His brilliance is perhaps emphasized by Dano, who turns in a rather unintentionally funny performance. As Eli, he is menacing enough and quite effective when performing in his chruch, yet he squeals and twists his face in a manner meant that quickly grows irritating. He suffers when put up against Day-Lewis, whose masterful and polished performance emphasizes the faults in Dano's.
Anderson shows tremendous growth as a director. Completely rejecting the intellectual quirkiness that defined BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA and hampered PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. He immerses his style completely in the era, working with cinematographer Robert Elswit to create a cold, sparse world, a place that perfectly reflects Plainview’s outlook on life. Johnny Greenwood’s unusual and electrifying score keeps the film from becoming just another period piece, emphasizing the alienating and unnerving aspects of the film; a great source of the film’s tension comes from Greenwood’s screeching violins.
The film moves at its own pace, taking more than 2.5 hours to tell its story. The extended sequences of quiet, apart from the wordless dialogue, will likely try the patience of some viewers while thrilling others. Anderson is not afraid to stray from the main storyline, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. Yet there are sequences of sheer brilliance that will stay in memory long after the film is done; the aforementioned prologue, the explosive discovery of oil at the Sunday ranch, Plainview’s humiliating introduction to the church and the curiously-set finale, among many others. THERE WILL BE BLOOD is definitely a film that must be seen to be believed. It will likely have as many lovers as haters, and that is perhaps the clearest sign of its achievement. Anderson and Day-Lewis have contributed outstanding work after long absences. One can only hope their next appearances will not take as long.
***1/2/****
Oil man Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an unforgiving man moving from town to town, scavenging for oil wells. He works up from a small, single hand-made well in the middle of nowhere (entrancingly depicted in the film’s prologue, completely devoid of dialogue) to a sizable envoy of men. After receiving an enigmatic tip, Plainview and his young son H.W. (wide-eyed Dillon Fraser) travel to the small Sunday ranch in Little Boston, where Plainview finds “an ocean of oil” beneath their feet. Yet his giant success does not come easy; he finds an enemy in Sunday’s son, self-proclaimed healer and church leader Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who uses his power to sway members of the congregation for his own vanity and financial needs.
Plainview is not a likable person; in many cases, he is as corrupt and jaded as the film’s supposed villains. Yet Day-Lewis is completely mesmerizing, keeping the viewer enthralled by his sheer determinism and terrifying demeanor. In certain scenes, he emits such a ferocity without words that is truly frightening. As such, the film carries a great deal of suspense, automatically sending viewers into winces and shivers when Day-Lewis turns his eye to madness. His brilliance is perhaps emphasized by Dano, who turns in a rather unintentionally funny performance. As Eli, he is menacing enough and quite effective when performing in his chruch, yet he squeals and twists his face in a manner meant that quickly grows irritating. He suffers when put up against Day-Lewis, whose masterful and polished performance emphasizes the faults in Dano's.
Anderson shows tremendous growth as a director. Completely rejecting the intellectual quirkiness that defined BOOGIE NIGHTS and MAGNOLIA and hampered PUNCH DRUNK LOVE. He immerses his style completely in the era, working with cinematographer Robert Elswit to create a cold, sparse world, a place that perfectly reflects Plainview’s outlook on life. Johnny Greenwood’s unusual and electrifying score keeps the film from becoming just another period piece, emphasizing the alienating and unnerving aspects of the film; a great source of the film’s tension comes from Greenwood’s screeching violins.
The film moves at its own pace, taking more than 2.5 hours to tell its story. The extended sequences of quiet, apart from the wordless dialogue, will likely try the patience of some viewers while thrilling others. Anderson is not afraid to stray from the main storyline, no matter how inconsequential it may seem. Yet there are sequences of sheer brilliance that will stay in memory long after the film is done; the aforementioned prologue, the explosive discovery of oil at the Sunday ranch, Plainview’s humiliating introduction to the church and the curiously-set finale, among many others. THERE WILL BE BLOOD is definitely a film that must be seen to be believed. It will likely have as many lovers as haters, and that is perhaps the clearest sign of its achievement. Anderson and Day-Lewis have contributed outstanding work after long absences. One can only hope their next appearances will not take as long.
***1/2/****
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)