THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN (2005)
Directed by Judd Apatow
Starring: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogan, Jane Lynch
I don't care much for sex comedies. To me, they're nothing more than an excuse to show as much T&A as possible without having to resort to actually being funny. Which is why I'm glad I came across this movie.
Carell plays Andy, a...well, it's in the title, folks. Andy's horny, sex-obsessed co-workers (Rudd, Malco and Rogan) all do their best to help their friend in need. But the thing is, Andy really doesn't want to have sex, which everyone around him treats as some kind of disease that is in desperate need of a cure. All of this changes when he meets Trish (Keener), the woman who runs the eBay store across the street. They hit it off. Andy and Trish really care for each other. Copulation seems inevitable. But Trish doesn't want to complicate things by getting physical. But Andy must tell her his secret, while his co-workers all learn a thing or two the virtues of a celibate and/or monogamous lifestyle.
I once remember a conversation I had with a film historian about filmmakers having a conservative message, but telling it in a liberal way (Well, okay, it was in film school, and the historian was my professor, and it wasn't so much a "conversation" as a "lecture," but, it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about). Anyway, this is a prime example of that theory. There are boobs, butts and dirty talk galore. But the overall message of the film is, "Hey, if you choose not to have sex, that's okay." It seems like such a contradiction, but it works. And it works because it does a great job of holding the mirror up to society.
It also works because it's friggin' hilarious. And again, its humor comes from observation of real life rather than contrived scenarios (with the possible exception of the chest-waxing scene). Judd Apatow actually shows a lot of restraint as to what is actually committed to film - there's not as much skin as you might think. But the dialogue alone could have gotten this film an NC-17 rating. Then again, I hear pretty much the same stuff where I work every day, so it didn't really phase me much. Also, that's probably also why I thought it was so funny.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Day 57: It's A Hard World For Little Things
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (1955)
Directed by Charles Laughton
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Billy Chapin, Sally Jane Bruce, Emmit Lynn
The Rev. Harry Powell (Mitchum) is an odd character. He knows the Bible chapter-and-verse, travels from town to town in a beat up jalopy and has the words "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles. Oh, and he also takes up with widows, marries them and kills them, claiming to be doing the Lord's work. But when he meets bank robber/murderer Ben Harper (Graves), he learns that there's a large stash of stolen money hidden somewhere, and only Harper's children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce), know where it's hidden. Harper is executed for his crime, but Powell (who was booked on a lesser charge) goes free. As soon as he's out, Powell finds Harper's widow, Willa (Winters), and sets out to marry her. Young Pearl dotes on her new daddy, but John is suspicious. Powell resumes his murderous ways, doing away with young Willa, but claiming to the townsfolk that she up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T. Now all that's left is to get the young'uns to divulge the whereabouts of the cash. But they get away and find themselves in the care of Rachel Cooper (Gish), who takes in wayward children. Unlike the "Reverend," Rachel is a model Christian, who bestows love on even the most hardened children. But of course, Powell finds them, which means he's only one step away from finding the loot.
There are a lot of people who say that this film was way ahead of its time, which may be true. But as I watched it, I noticed that there was a definite nod towards the films of the silent era. Several tricks of that time were used, such as using an iris in/out to make the audience focus on one particular thing. Also, much of the scenes were shot in a way that was reminiscent of German Expressionism. The honeymoon scene in particular calls to mind The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Laughton even cast the biggest silent film star of her day in Lillian Gish, who, surprisingly, was the best actor in the film.
Yes, all of this makes the film visually stunning. But the acting was way over the top, even by 1950's melodrama standards. Mitchum is chilling as the crooked Reverend, but he (and just about everyone else) overplays it almost to the point of ludicrousness.
Now, if the auteur theory is to be believed, then this film is a extension of Charles Laughton's hatred toward two things: organized religion and female sexuality. The Reverend claims to be doing the Lord's work, and whether he believes it or not is up for debate. But we know he's a monster. And how many times have we seen in the news (especially these days) those who were supposedly men of God doing despicable things? As for the latter, many of the women in the film go on and on about how sex is strictly for the production of children. One woman even states that when she and her husband have relations, she's "thinking about her canning." The one woman in the film who seems to genuinely want physical affection is Willa. And the Reverend kills her for it. Of course, talking in such a frank way about such matters in 1955 is probably what made this film so "ahead of its time."
So this is an interesting film to be sure, but whether or not it's a "classic" is really up to you and how you define what is and isn't "classic." Personally, I was pretty underwhelmed with it, and even found points of it hokey and laughable. But it's definitely worth a look.
Directed by Charles Laughton
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Billy Chapin, Sally Jane Bruce, Emmit Lynn
The Rev. Harry Powell (Mitchum) is an odd character. He knows the Bible chapter-and-verse, travels from town to town in a beat up jalopy and has the words "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles. Oh, and he also takes up with widows, marries them and kills them, claiming to be doing the Lord's work. But when he meets bank robber/murderer Ben Harper (Graves), he learns that there's a large stash of stolen money hidden somewhere, and only Harper's children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce), know where it's hidden. Harper is executed for his crime, but Powell (who was booked on a lesser charge) goes free. As soon as he's out, Powell finds Harper's widow, Willa (Winters), and sets out to marry her. Young Pearl dotes on her new daddy, but John is suspicious. Powell resumes his murderous ways, doing away with young Willa, but claiming to the townsfolk that she up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T. Now all that's left is to get the young'uns to divulge the whereabouts of the cash. But they get away and find themselves in the care of Rachel Cooper (Gish), who takes in wayward children. Unlike the "Reverend," Rachel is a model Christian, who bestows love on even the most hardened children. But of course, Powell finds them, which means he's only one step away from finding the loot.
There are a lot of people who say that this film was way ahead of its time, which may be true. But as I watched it, I noticed that there was a definite nod towards the films of the silent era. Several tricks of that time were used, such as using an iris in/out to make the audience focus on one particular thing. Also, much of the scenes were shot in a way that was reminiscent of German Expressionism. The honeymoon scene in particular calls to mind The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Laughton even cast the biggest silent film star of her day in Lillian Gish, who, surprisingly, was the best actor in the film.
Yes, all of this makes the film visually stunning. But the acting was way over the top, even by 1950's melodrama standards. Mitchum is chilling as the crooked Reverend, but he (and just about everyone else) overplays it almost to the point of ludicrousness.
Now, if the auteur theory is to be believed, then this film is a extension of Charles Laughton's hatred toward two things: organized religion and female sexuality. The Reverend claims to be doing the Lord's work, and whether he believes it or not is up for debate. But we know he's a monster. And how many times have we seen in the news (especially these days) those who were supposedly men of God doing despicable things? As for the latter, many of the women in the film go on and on about how sex is strictly for the production of children. One woman even states that when she and her husband have relations, she's "thinking about her canning." The one woman in the film who seems to genuinely want physical affection is Willa. And the Reverend kills her for it. Of course, talking in such a frank way about such matters in 1955 is probably what made this film so "ahead of its time."
So this is an interesting film to be sure, but whether or not it's a "classic" is really up to you and how you define what is and isn't "classic." Personally, I was pretty underwhelmed with it, and even found points of it hokey and laughable. But it's definitely worth a look.
Day 56: I Felt It. I Was Perfect.
BLACK SWAN (2010)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
This movie freaked me out. And coming from a guy who was unfazed by Eraserhead and El Topo, that's saying something.
The story concerns Nina (Portman), a young ballerina who dreams of dancing the White Swan in "Swan Lake." However, when the director Thomas (Cassel) announces his new take on the piece, things get a bit complicated: The White Swan and the evil Black Swan will be played by the same dancer. Nina's got the White Swan down, but she's not much in touch with her dark side. Therefore, her Black Swan suffers. But Thomas sees potential in her, so he casts her in the lead, much to the chagrin of retiring dancer Beth (Ryder). Nina tries and tries, but she can't quite get the darkness and seduction Thomas is looking for. So he tries to seduce her out of her shell. Along the way, the new girl Lily (Kunis), a green but very passionate dancer, is cast as Nina's understudy.
Sounds like a pretty common plot thread, right? Well, while all this is going on, Nina slowly starts to lose her grip on reality. Her dark side that has been suppressed for so long bubbles to the surface. But it is filmed in such a way that the audience can't quite get a hold on what's really happening - whether it's part of the story, or if it's all just in Nina's head. The more Nina lets loose, the more the Black Swan consumes her until she begins a very literal transformation.
Let me get this out of the way: I love Darren Aronofsky. I think he's one of the most brilliant directors working today. The first film of his I ever saw was Requiem for a Dream, a film about the depth junkies will sink to in order to get their fix. It's visually stunning, and extremely graphic; it should be required viewing on day one for anyone going into rehab. Black Swan is a very similar film. Aronofsky pulls no punches in his portrayal of a woman losing her mind. And, in a way, the audience feels they are losing their minds as well. This is a very difficult trick to pull off, but it's not impossible. The key is being completely and totally fearless, which Aronofsky has always been. Heck, even his film The Fountain, while incomprehensible in places, is a fearless film, made by a director who knows exactly what he wants and goes for it full-throttle. There aren't many directors today who can say that.
I was completely on edge by the time the end credits rolled. I felt as if I had gone with Nina on this journey down the rabbit hole into the darkest depths of her soul. And if that sort of feeling excites you, I recommend this film highly. But I don't want to tell anyone to skip this movie. Even if it scares the living daylights out of you, it's a great example of how a director can play an audience like a piano.
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder
This movie freaked me out. And coming from a guy who was unfazed by Eraserhead and El Topo, that's saying something.
The story concerns Nina (Portman), a young ballerina who dreams of dancing the White Swan in "Swan Lake." However, when the director Thomas (Cassel) announces his new take on the piece, things get a bit complicated: The White Swan and the evil Black Swan will be played by the same dancer. Nina's got the White Swan down, but she's not much in touch with her dark side. Therefore, her Black Swan suffers. But Thomas sees potential in her, so he casts her in the lead, much to the chagrin of retiring dancer Beth (Ryder). Nina tries and tries, but she can't quite get the darkness and seduction Thomas is looking for. So he tries to seduce her out of her shell. Along the way, the new girl Lily (Kunis), a green but very passionate dancer, is cast as Nina's understudy.
Sounds like a pretty common plot thread, right? Well, while all this is going on, Nina slowly starts to lose her grip on reality. Her dark side that has been suppressed for so long bubbles to the surface. But it is filmed in such a way that the audience can't quite get a hold on what's really happening - whether it's part of the story, or if it's all just in Nina's head. The more Nina lets loose, the more the Black Swan consumes her until she begins a very literal transformation.
Let me get this out of the way: I love Darren Aronofsky. I think he's one of the most brilliant directors working today. The first film of his I ever saw was Requiem for a Dream, a film about the depth junkies will sink to in order to get their fix. It's visually stunning, and extremely graphic; it should be required viewing on day one for anyone going into rehab. Black Swan is a very similar film. Aronofsky pulls no punches in his portrayal of a woman losing her mind. And, in a way, the audience feels they are losing their minds as well. This is a very difficult trick to pull off, but it's not impossible. The key is being completely and totally fearless, which Aronofsky has always been. Heck, even his film The Fountain, while incomprehensible in places, is a fearless film, made by a director who knows exactly what he wants and goes for it full-throttle. There aren't many directors today who can say that.
I was completely on edge by the time the end credits rolled. I felt as if I had gone with Nina on this journey down the rabbit hole into the darkest depths of her soul. And if that sort of feeling excites you, I recommend this film highly. But I don't want to tell anyone to skip this movie. Even if it scares the living daylights out of you, it's a great example of how a director can play an audience like a piano.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Day 55: You Have Part Of My Attention. You Have The Minimum Amount
THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
Directed by David Fincher
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Erica Albright, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella
People keep telling me I don't watch modern films. To tell the truth, the reason I started this project was so that I could catch up on the classics. But in so doing, many of the films that have come out in the last year that everyone and their dog has seen have sort of fallen by the wayside. So here I am, trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
On that note, here we have The Social Network. I was very excited when this film came out, but alas, I was broke at the time, so I kept putting off actually seeing it. Anytime you have this much behind-the-camera talent (director David Fincher, writer Aaron Sorkin and Music by Trent Reznor), the geek in me starts to surface. Of course, if the movie sucks, I get understandably upset.
But The Social Network, the film that was touted as being no less than THE film of this generation, was...pretty good. In fact, it was better than pretty good. But there was only one thing about it that rubbed me the wrong way: the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) is here presented as one of the biggest jerks in history. Yes, the writing is great, the music is creepy - everything I was expecting from this crack team of collaborators. But I came away from this film feeling more than a bit down. I can't root for a guy who sells out one of his best friends and is so emotionally distant and cocky almost to the point of being a sociopath. Then again, the film didn't really set out to put Zuckerberg in a positive light, which is a good thing. If that had been their aim, they would have failed miserably.
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Like I said, it's wonderfully and artfully directed, written and acted. But the film's messages of how unfair life is, and how even your best friend can stab you in the back left me feeling more than a bit down. Though the final shot is a thing of genius. Zuckerberg sits alone in a room, perusing Facebook (of course), and comes across the page of his ex-girlfriend, who broke up with him in the first scene. He sends a Friend request. Captions flash across the screen about what happened to whom after the events of the film. As Zuckerberg hits the "refresh" button over and over again, the final caption reads, "Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world." And he's all alone, wondering if his ex-girlfriend still thinks about him. Just like millions of other poor schmucks.
Directed by David Fincher
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Erica Albright, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella
People keep telling me I don't watch modern films. To tell the truth, the reason I started this project was so that I could catch up on the classics. But in so doing, many of the films that have come out in the last year that everyone and their dog has seen have sort of fallen by the wayside. So here I am, trying to catch up with the rest of the world.
On that note, here we have The Social Network. I was very excited when this film came out, but alas, I was broke at the time, so I kept putting off actually seeing it. Anytime you have this much behind-the-camera talent (director David Fincher, writer Aaron Sorkin and Music by Trent Reznor), the geek in me starts to surface. Of course, if the movie sucks, I get understandably upset.
But The Social Network, the film that was touted as being no less than THE film of this generation, was...pretty good. In fact, it was better than pretty good. But there was only one thing about it that rubbed me the wrong way: the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) is here presented as one of the biggest jerks in history. Yes, the writing is great, the music is creepy - everything I was expecting from this crack team of collaborators. But I came away from this film feeling more than a bit down. I can't root for a guy who sells out one of his best friends and is so emotionally distant and cocky almost to the point of being a sociopath. Then again, the film didn't really set out to put Zuckerberg in a positive light, which is a good thing. If that had been their aim, they would have failed miserably.
All this is not to say that the film is bad. Like I said, it's wonderfully and artfully directed, written and acted. But the film's messages of how unfair life is, and how even your best friend can stab you in the back left me feeling more than a bit down. Though the final shot is a thing of genius. Zuckerberg sits alone in a room, perusing Facebook (of course), and comes across the page of his ex-girlfriend, who broke up with him in the first scene. He sends a Friend request. Captions flash across the screen about what happened to whom after the events of the film. As Zuckerberg hits the "refresh" button over and over again, the final caption reads, "Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world." And he's all alone, wondering if his ex-girlfriend still thinks about him. Just like millions of other poor schmucks.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Day 54: If Your Life Had A Face, I Would Punch It
SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010)
Directed by Edgar Wright
Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Jason Schwartzman, Brandon Routh, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons
Have you ever wondered what it might be like if your life were more like a video game?
No? You say that was just me?
Actually, it wasn’t just me. And since somebody made a movie (and comic book series) based on that exact premise, I actually feel justified. I’m normal. You’re the freaks.
Anyway…
Scott Pilgrim (Cera) is a typical Canadian young adult. He’s in a kick-ass garage band called Sex Bob-omb, he’s dating a high school girl (“We almost held hands once, but she got embarrassed”) and lives in what appears to be a basement with his gay roommate Wallace (Culkin). Then, one magical day, he meets the girl of his dreams, Ramona. Now I know what you’re thinking: he’s got to figure out a way to get with Ramona without breaking his current girlfriend’s heart, right? Well…yeah, there’s that. But he’s also got to defeat Ramona’s Seven Evil Exes (not necessarily “ex-boyfriends”) in video-game-inspired hand-to-hand combat, complete with score counter, power-ups and extra lives.
This is the kind of movie that may not appeal to older audience members who didn’t grow up with video games and comic books. But that’s okay. It wasn’t exactly made for you, just like A Hard Day’s Night wasn’t made for your parents. But as someone who grew up with both, I have to say, this movie really nailed it. Like I said, I don’t think I’m the only one who ever daydreamed about what it would be like to take down the school bully Mortal Kombat-style. And this movie was so much like my dreams, it was a bit scary.
I know I usually talk about how good (or bad) the acting was, but in this case, it wasn’t so much about the acting, which is pretty good, considering the fact that it’s a special effects showcase. Movies like this are really more about the casting than the actual performances; trying to get the best type rather than the best performer. On that scale, it was pretty spot-on. Everyone delivered a type of sarcastic, deadpan performance, which, if you listen to the young people around us today, is right on the money. If I had to pick one performance that stands out, it would be Kieran Culkin as Wallace. I for one am glad to see a gay character that isn’t the stereotypical limp-wristed, mincing nancy-boy that appears in 99% of movies that call for a gay character. He was just a regular, everyday person, as are most gay people I know (though he is a bit of a man-whore).
Once again, I found myself watching a film based on a comic book series I had only skimmed through once when I was at Barnes & Nobel. I suppose I should stop doing that and only review films based on books I’ve read, but that’s not really the purpose here. I just tell you whether or not I liked the movie. And I liked this one a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)