|
There Will Be Blood
Grade: M=5; F=5
Hi, my name is Spaldy and I’m a Paul Thomas Anderson addict. I fully and freely admit that I loved and defended “Magnolia” and am intensely
affectionate toward “Punch-Drunk Love” to this day. But even if I
didn’t have some strange affection and connection to Anderson’s films, I would still have to say that this was
one of the best films of last year. More importantly, I think it is a classic.
It is a classic for a host of reason. The main one being Daniel Day-Lewis’
performance here. The character of Daniel Plainview is a complex man who can
not really be read. Full of depth and surprise, he is one of the
great characters of cinema. He kind of reminded me of Robert DeNiro’s performances
as Jake LaMotta and Travis Bickle. These are intense characters that we are both
drawn in by and repulsed by at the same time. Daniel Plainview fits that mold. It isn’t just the script either. The
script, though magnificent both in terms of what it says and what it doesn’t say, doesn’t provide all that the
character is. Sure Plainview’s situations and his dialogue play their part
in the creation of the character, but Day-Lewis’ mannerisms, his eyes, and the cadence of his speech is what makes Plainview
come alive. The performance is magnetic and riveting.
Day-Lewis isn’t alone in drawing you in. The rest of the cast, including
the expressive face of little H.W. adds just as much to the feel of the story. Really,
this has always been the greatest strength of Anderson; the performances he evokes from his casts. For all the crap he has taken for the length and bloating in his past films, one thing that has remained
consistent is the wonderful performances he coaxes out of his cast. Granted he
usually casts some of the best people in all of Hollywood, but even the best actors can falter if not given the right direction. Added to Anderson’s usual strength of directing actors is a renewed freshness
to the rest of his directorial duties. Though the framing of most of the film
offers nothing fresh in terms of camera work (like he has in the past), that is easily forgiven by the pacing, The landscape is its own character. By the book framing is
easily forgiven when what is on the screen speaks its own volumes and is its own living, breathing character.
One of the most remarkable things about the script for me is the silence. For
the first 10 minutes or so of the film, there are no words. There is story for
sure, but there are no words. How refreshing it is to see a film that lets the
audience see the story rather than be told what it is. There are no voice overs. No real exposition. It is an intuitive
way of storytelling, and a manner I don’t think Anderson has really used all that much before. When the characters do speak, every word holds its own power and meaning.
It is a lean collection of dialogue but it packs a hearty punch for the viewer.
There are moments when the silences take on their own life. In that same
vein, there are moments when the music takes on its own life. With the exception
of “Into the Wild” earlier this year, I can not remember the last time that I saw a film where the musical score
was so much its own character. The music here lives. The music groans. There are times when the music is so intense
that one has difficulty breathing. Your heart races and your body braces for
what is coming. This film uses a delicate balance of music and silence to tell
as much of the tale as the people manage to. It is intense. It is unforgiving. It is bracing. By now you
can tell that I think this film is a brilliant masterpiece. There were moments
when I realized my mouth was actually hanging open. There were moments when I
caught myself leaning forward in my seat. Mostly I just caught myself realizing
that I was falling in love again. When I ran into Anderson last year at a taco
stand I said nothing to him. If I would have known about the intense beauty of
this film, I would have turned around and said something. I would have said “thank
you.” What else could one say about a film such as this? It is a gift. It is a blessing. And it is a reminder of what a film can be if you let it.
|
 |
|
|
Nim's Island
Grade: M=3, F=2
I waited until Saturday morning to see this movie. I would like to say it was only because it would be the best way to gauge the audience’s reaction
to a kids' movie, but honestly, my Friday night ritual movie takes a backseat to the season premiere of “Battlestar
Galactica.” Still, I think it was a wise to delay until Saturday so that
I could see how kids reacted to this movie. Although I may not have been bowled
over, you could have heard a pin drop in the theatre. It is rare that you go
to a movie stocked with that many kids and do not hear a peep from any of them. Either
they were riveted to the screen or high on the sugary goodness of Raisinettes, they fell asleep during the hypnotic opening
credits.
“Nim’s Island” is the story of 11 year old Nim who lives on an island in the Pacific Ocean, somewhere
near the Cook Islands. Her mother, an oceanographer, died when she was four years
old. Her scientist father Jack (Gerard Butler with an American accent) loaded
her onto their boat and sailed around the world twice until he discovered this “Fire Island” where they settled
to live. Nim grew up on the island with her father and only the local animals
as her friends. It sounds like a lonely existence but you would never know it
from the total, unmitigated joy emanating from both Nim and her father. These
are clearly two people who are passionate about life and quite content with what they have.
Nim spends her days with her sea lion, pelican, and lizard friends, and only punctuates this routine with shipments
from the outside world, which occasionally include the latest Alex Rover adventure novel.
Jack sets off on a two day boat trip to track down new species of plankton, reluctantly leaving behind his stubborn
daughter after she talks him into letting her stay behind to help hatch sea turtles.
However, a horrible storm pops up out of nowhere, leaving Jack stranded out at sea in his sinking boat. Meanwhile, Nim enjoys her freedom back on the island and even manages to meet her hero Alex Rover online. What Nim does not know is that adventurer Alex Rover is actually an agoraphobic woman
named Alexandra living in San Francisco who has never done anything close to adventurous, save attempting to get her mail. When the crazy storm comes ashore on the island, Nim becomes worried when she no longer
can contact her father by satellite phone. Scared, Nim reaches out to her hero
Alex Rover and manages to talk her into coming to the island to help her.
This movie has a number of things going for it. The cast is phenomenal,
even if I do not buy for a second that Jodie Foster would be afraid of anything. The
four main characters, Nim, Alexandra Rover, imaginary male Alex Rover (also Butler), and Jack are likeable and interesting. The story idea is exciting and fun, and it is exactly the kind of movie I would have
either imagined myself as a child or been anxious to watch repeatedly at the local movieplex.
The problem I had with the movie was that despite the story and actors, it still kind of felt flat. In part this was the directing, but in larger part, the writing just did not flow well. There was 10 lbs of plot in this 5 lb bag and yet the movie still seemed to drag. The side plot of Nim defending her island was fun, but it took up too much of the screen time. I almost would have liked to see more of Alexandra’s journey and struggle, but on the other hand,
I don’t think Jodie Foster’s comic timing would have made that more enjoyable.
I also liked the imaginary Alex Rover played by Butler with his native Scottish accent, talking to Foster. It kind of reminded me of Jack Flack from “Cloak and Dagger” only Alex haunts the adult rather
than the child in this movie. Still I liked Alex’s chemistry with Alexandra
quite a bit, and I almost would have liked to see more of it.
Overall this movie is better for kids because adults might get bored, especially on repeat viewings with their children. I think the movie has enough things going right with it that children will not only
enjoy it, but have a special place in their heart for it as they get older. A
great family movie, it is worth checking out in the theatre if you have kids. If
you don’t have any, DVD and cable are a fine place to check this out later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cassandra's Dream
Grade: M=3; F=3
I am not an especially large fan of Woody Allen. I admit he has talent. I admit he takes chances when many
famous directors rarely stray from a certain path. And it is likely because he
takes chances with his films that they are hit or miss with me. Still, it was
a rainy gloomy day out (my favorite!) and thanks to a particularly rough day at the gym Saturday, my arms had sort of atrophied
from the muscle pain into a perpetual C. Montgomery Burns stature. It would have
been a sin to sit at home, steepling my fingers saying “excellent” without referring to a movie.
“Cassandra’s Dream” is playing at the new Valley Arclight, which is finally open in full, complete
with a beautiful 20 foot wall of lit up movie posters. It is exactly as I imagined any rich person with taste would decorate
their hallways. Still, in most other respects, it has the sound, picture, and
feel of original recipe Arclight in Hollywood. But enough about the theatre.
“Cassandra’s Dream” is basically the story of two ambitious but limited brothers. Colin Farrell plays Terry the auto mechanic brother with a love of gambling and his steady girlfriend. Ewan McGregor is Ian the brother who runs his father’s restaurant but who has
dreams of becoming a major player in business, and in particular, investing in hotels in California. Their lives are simple and hopeful, but are not really filled with much drama or intrigue. They are normal men who enter into an abnormal situation when their financial situations take a dramatic
turn. I won’t spoil the plot but as the movie is billed as a thriller and
it is accompanied by a musical score by Phillip Glass, one can figure out where the story is headed; nowhere good.
“Cassandra’s Dream” is as uncomfortable as most Allen films.
Unlike with “Match Point” though, these characters seem less despicable and in a way, understandable. You spent countless moments shaking your head, wanting to yell, “NO!”
at the screen. Credit definitely goes to Farrell and McGregor fro making Terry
and Ian feel so real and believable. That said, I still got the distinct impression
from both that they were acting on the stage instead of for a film. I don’t
know if this was a directorial misfire or if it was a choice, but it plays a bit as overacting at times. Still, by the end I could buy into the characters, even if they still come across as Farrell and McGregor
playing those characters. This was a shame, but perhaps unavoidable. For Allen, although he has pulled wonderful performances out of his actors, his main focus is always the
written word. Actors know this when they work with him. The danger for an actor though it that their character may be enjoyable, but if they don’t have the
acting chops to pull it off, one can only see what a neat character that was played by such and such rather than what an amazing
character that was on screen. It is a subtle difference when the writing is good,
but can be disastrous if the script isn’t there. In this case, the writing
was good (not great – no remarkable, memorable dialogue) but that difference definitely holds the movie back from becoming
more.
I thought he story was rather fascinating. It reminded me of countless
episodes of “Cold Case Files” or “Forensic Files” from TV. As
a fan of those shows it made me want to be more vocal with the characters than one probably should be in a theatre. Still, this wasn’t as difficult to watch as “Match Point” or similar movies by other
directors like “The Ice Harvest.” Not that those movies are similar
in plot, just similar in one’s reaction as an audience member. Sometimes
films can make you squirm in your seat, and Allen succeeds in provoking this reaction here.
Though you feel every bit of the 2 hours and 50 minutes here, it still manages to move along. I’m not sure how a movie can feel simultaneously long and not have any lulls, but Allen manages it. This is a good story of what man is capable of in life when even he does not know
himself. And it is a good story of the lengths a man can go to delude himself
about what he is capable of doing. Mostly, it is just a good film and worth a
look see.
|
|
|
|
|
