By Rick Jackson
Veteran film director Roman Polanski relies on old ideas from his body of work to come up with a film of such subtlety and suspense, you are enveloped in a series of episodes that convey more than what the naked eye perceives. If you are a true fan of the director's films, you will forgive him for including an ending that comes much too soon. However, much of what precedes it is typical of a Polanski movie because he brings to the screen by his steady hands a suspenser which you are slowly driven into near madness by the main cast until the meaning of it all slows down from its total impact as a story told full throttle via his penchant to convey a stream of cockiness and ambition which, at a closer glance, captures your attention like it should. Along the way, there is corruption and a vitality of superficiality which quickly is replaced by performances from a cast who may appear at odds by the incongruous plot threads, but it is all the more fun in watching and trusting Polanski's directorial instincts.
Like most of the director's oeuvre, you are immediately thrust into an uncomfortable position as the voyeur because what unfolds is a story of intrigue and suspense where you need to keep watching. The first act of murder is assumed by your inherent understanding of what just happened to someone you never get to meet. It all presents the prologue as more cloak and dagger when the character Adam Lang is introduced. Pierce Brosnan imbues him with the right air of chutzpah as the personification of the debonair playboy type.
Just as the director projected himself to the vulnerability of the female victim in Repulsion and Tess, he switches to the male lead in his latest to suggest latent homosexual tendencies that may be farfetched to begin with. Both Brosnan and co-star Ewan McGregor are very handsome which Polanski is not, and he may be living vicariously through them.
The director's eye for women is inescapable in his latest, where Brosnan's Lang is supposed to be easily seduced as a a matter of seducing you, the moviegoer, into believing it can still happen. The convergence of seduction gets short shrift by the undeniable fact that Lang doesn't want to be seduced at all, which may reflect the director's changing attitudes towards sex.
The use of still images in The Ghost Writer goes back to his film, What. In his latest it manifests itself as part of the plot's development near the end as a precursor to the build up of suspense and more intrigue.
There is only one act of murder in The Ghost Writer which is revealed through what Polanski's biographer, Barbara Leaming describes as "the enigma of violence." It is an act that comes as a shock because it is unexpected. As you watch it happen you feel like as helpless as the voyeur, an innocent bystanderwatching safely in your seat. There is no dialogue to support this unredeeming display of horror which can only mean that Polanski wants you to feel its full impact by ensuring your undivided attention. What happens later also depends on how you recognize and perceive the sequence in which a note is passed around, and where it all ultimately ends.
The screenplay by Polanski and Robert Harris based on the latter's novel nicely lays out the enigmatic qualities of the man you learn has drowned under mysterious circumstances and, as it turns out, is Lang's predecessor as the person of the film's title.
McGregor portrays The Ghost Writer as someone serious about his work while seizing an opportunity to advance his career, although it is more inferred by the actor's demeanor than through spoken dialogue or flashbacks. As the screenwriters try to blame the drowning of the first ghost writer on a corporation that is not fully explained, you have to pay attention to what dialogue is spoken.
Polanski loves to make you uncomfortable in a sneaky way and there are conversations between an elderly local played by Eli Wallach and the Ghost Writer which will guarantee you will stay on the edge of your seat.
A fine supporting cast contributes to the overall telling and the way you are immersed in it. Olivia Williams plays Adam's wife Ruth as an overwrought wife who is also sexually repressed, and Kim Cattrall's Amelia tries to be the vixen with thoughts of advancing her career through her own wiles.
What matters the most is the director's ability to make you lose yourself in the characters and their motives for being there. Like Chinatown (1974) where his vision and obsession was stripped down to draw you in a mystery beyond comprehension, it is Polanski's own personal defence when he supplies a narrative to punctuate the ordinariness of the basic storyline and it strikes with familiarity. The incriminating photos in The Ghost Writer do not send the same shivers like it did in Chinatown, but they are important in understanding the film's abject conclusion. One never meets another Gittes, either, a part well played by Jack Nicholson. The closest Polanski gets is in James Belushi's John Maddox, someone who brings vitality to the proceedings and, sadly, becomes too much of secondary importance , when we could have benefitted more by his contribution to the plot.
Another character gets short shrift and this is Timothy Hutton's Sidney Kroll who stays in the background far too much. Had his role been larger role in assessing what is going on behind the scenes there might have been more suspense and action for us to appreciate.
Cast as Tom Emmett, a colleague of the man who drowned is Tom Wilkinson, whose affable performance brings more than a note of mystery. As you watch him carefully there is more to behold. Through Polanski's individual curiosity as voyeur, he wants you to salivate in your seat as he makes you wait for him to give away a major plot point with a piece of dialogue. Thankfully, he doesn't. With some unerring glances by the cast in the camera, he demands your undivided attention. The realties of inconvenience and neatness are substituted by reminders what you are watching is no ordinary story, but an ominous piece of American Cinema that has unfolded with an equal measure of the dramatic revealed at the right time. Right up to the end credits, you are left captivated and stunned by it all. Few films these days leave you thinking so smartly and consistently for so long.
It is rated PG/Parental Guidance, with the warnings: mature theme and language may offend.
March 24, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Friday, April 23, 2010
THE LAST STATION (MONGREL MEDIA, 2009)***
By Rick Jackson
From writer/director Michael Hoffman comes a poignant character study about celebrity and its meaning to a literary figure professionally and personally. It is based on the novel of the same name by Jay Parini.
Christopher Plummer plays Leo Tolstoy as a towering symbol of just what celebrity really meant to a great writer and the rights and profits that were being discussed before he died. He portrays him as the old sage he was in real life. His uncanny resemblance to the real Tolstoy adds credibility to the film's plodding story, but it doesn't take away any of the power of Plummer's performance because he remains a totally convincing character of clarity and vision. His spats with his wife Sofya (Helen Mirren) and arguments with his disciple Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) add spice to the bland surroundings that inhabit their lives at the Cherry Orchard where some of the action takes place.
A fine supporting cast defines the film's sticking points as a biopic of distinction which covers the last days of Tolstoy and the bickering that went on around him which, according to the film, was not totslly oblivious to him, but definitely had something to say. He was not afraid to speak up during an idle conversation and Plummer zeros in on this part of the man Tolstoy may well have been like in person.
Mirren keeps the story believable by behaving like a famous writer's wife did back then. Her strong performance keeps aim at the whole concept of celebrity and how intrusive it was during Tolstoy's time compared to today. She brings to Sofya the femininity of the woman married to a famous writer and her devotion as a mother to their daughter Masha (Kerry Condon in a fine supporting role).
Plummer succeeds in downplaying his part so you can appreciate the eccentricities of Tolstoy, especially when it came to love which he believed was the foundation of life itself. Rather than preach about it or his politics and religion, you are entertained by his sense of humour which is echoed in the archival pictures over the end credits.
Throughout the film, you meet other characters, such as Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) who has been hired by Chertkov to spy on Tolstoy. It provides some welcome humour when you realize that Tolstoy knows what is going on. Watch Plummer in the scene where he is asked if he has a pen.
There is another equally good scene when Masha impresses Valentin with her social graces and her sense of quiet humanity. Whenever they are together there is raucous laughter and fun to be had from their ne'er do well behaviour.
The entire production benefits by the invention of the gramophone and the sounds of operatic recordings that were popular.
Being a biopic, you know how it ends, but it doesn't remove any of the colourful life of Tolstoy and his contribution to literature in the 20th century. How he lived defined the notion of celebrity long before it developed into how it is today with the paparazzi.
Plummer gives Tolstoy his proper due as an individual whose humanity by his performance in The Last Station describes how we should remember him. Hoffman deserves credit for presenting him as true and honest as the man and the literary giant he has been revered in his day and afterwards.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: mature theme, nudity and sexual content.
March 26, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
From writer/director Michael Hoffman comes a poignant character study about celebrity and its meaning to a literary figure professionally and personally. It is based on the novel of the same name by Jay Parini.
Christopher Plummer plays Leo Tolstoy as a towering symbol of just what celebrity really meant to a great writer and the rights and profits that were being discussed before he died. He portrays him as the old sage he was in real life. His uncanny resemblance to the real Tolstoy adds credibility to the film's plodding story, but it doesn't take away any of the power of Plummer's performance because he remains a totally convincing character of clarity and vision. His spats with his wife Sofya (Helen Mirren) and arguments with his disciple Chertkov (Paul Giamatti) add spice to the bland surroundings that inhabit their lives at the Cherry Orchard where some of the action takes place.
A fine supporting cast defines the film's sticking points as a biopic of distinction which covers the last days of Tolstoy and the bickering that went on around him which, according to the film, was not totslly oblivious to him, but definitely had something to say. He was not afraid to speak up during an idle conversation and Plummer zeros in on this part of the man Tolstoy may well have been like in person.
Mirren keeps the story believable by behaving like a famous writer's wife did back then. Her strong performance keeps aim at the whole concept of celebrity and how intrusive it was during Tolstoy's time compared to today. She brings to Sofya the femininity of the woman married to a famous writer and her devotion as a mother to their daughter Masha (Kerry Condon in a fine supporting role).
Plummer succeeds in downplaying his part so you can appreciate the eccentricities of Tolstoy, especially when it came to love which he believed was the foundation of life itself. Rather than preach about it or his politics and religion, you are entertained by his sense of humour which is echoed in the archival pictures over the end credits.
Throughout the film, you meet other characters, such as Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) who has been hired by Chertkov to spy on Tolstoy. It provides some welcome humour when you realize that Tolstoy knows what is going on. Watch Plummer in the scene where he is asked if he has a pen.
There is another equally good scene when Masha impresses Valentin with her social graces and her sense of quiet humanity. Whenever they are together there is raucous laughter and fun to be had from their ne'er do well behaviour.
The entire production benefits by the invention of the gramophone and the sounds of operatic recordings that were popular.
Being a biopic, you know how it ends, but it doesn't remove any of the colourful life of Tolstoy and his contribution to literature in the 20th century. How he lived defined the notion of celebrity long before it developed into how it is today with the paparazzi.
Plummer gives Tolstoy his proper due as an individual whose humanity by his performance in The Last Station describes how we should remember him. Hoffman deserves credit for presenting him as true and honest as the man and the literary giant he has been revered in his day and afterwards.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: mature theme, nudity and sexual content.
March 26, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
A PROPHET (MONGREL MEDIA, 2009)***
By Rick Jackson
Like the Warner Brothers gangster films of the 1930s and 1940s, A Prophet takes itself seriously as do the characters in addressing the same milieu of the individual gangster who claims his own ground by his reputation and honour among his peers, such as Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar (1930). It also shares under typical conditions which are familiar , if you remember The Godfather (1972) and Good Fellas (1990), two examples of the violence felt within the sphere of influence by the lead character and also the catalyst that propels the action until the pulse of what follows gives you a knee jerk reaction in your seat. Like the victims of the vuilence suffered by them, you are literally drawn into this conventional story and the gruelling sequences that mark the plot's inner intricacies by their penchants for creating a world that is insane without justification. Howver, in this world quite different from the Warner classics is the sheer insanity despite the familiar shots of gangsters in action and the miscellaneous gut reactions that register in your stomach as you try to make sense of it all. Any resemblance of crude behaviour and the bloody assault to the senses are meant to repulse you. Anyone who is used to the black and white classics must be prepared because the gangster film has grown up. The outpouring of vengeance is meaner and bloodier, as are the gamut of emotions to match the director's own need to satisfy those critics and fans who expect to be entertained by the ordinariness of the episodes as the plot dictates within the story's unflinching attitude and purpose.
Director Jacques Audiard uses a far different turf compared to the gangster film of yesteryear. He continues to follow the American example from the 1970s on in expressing the unsavoury people who move around in a character driven plot establishing the narrative. In A Prophet there is a defining mood and depiction of the gangster as anti-hero.
Newcomer Tahar Rahim plays Malik El Djebena. His resourcefulness becomes a complete surprise and helps give the film credibility as it slowly unfolds from the moment he goes up the escalator at the airport with an air of authority. He, essentially, becomes the new manipulator or new man in the scheme of things. Watch how he reacts to maintain his survival which, as it turns out, is exactly what is central to the film because it concentrates on the two factions vying for control: the Corsican and Italian criminal organizations. They each treat their own and dispense justice in their own way like Don Corleone in The Godfather and Henry Hill in Good Fellas. In A Prophet, you can feel the tension and power by the Arab mafia in France.
When Djebena becomes the outsider, he is arrested for a petty crime. You are then introduced to Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup), a Corsican kingpin who runs everything from his cell. The way he operates rivals the Don Corleones when Luciani learns of Reyeb (Hichem Yacoubi), an Arab prisoner who is going to testify in Djebena's trial. Assessing the situation, Reyeb then recruits Luciani and to get his co-operation , he threatens to kill him. As he sleeps, he is tormented by what may happen. Djebena is given protection by the Corsicans. However, as an Arab he is treated with contempt. You also learn how he has been a model prisoner and has a job when he is released. A chain of events beyond his control changes the landscape when one side wants to prove whose boss. Although it isn't always clear, you have to trust Audiard. When Djebena is asked if he is a prophet, the silence of that moment makes you think twice if he is one or not.
Given the Oxford Dictionary meaning of a prophet as someone who can foretell the future, it seems more likely he is not one but more a mole in the organization. Still one must also consider if it is all part of a war of attrition between the Corsicans and Italians. It is interesting how each side looks for a weak link until all hell breaks loose, and it comes as no surprise how it all ends. Audiard is more content in giving you propositions rather than tell you outright beyond the requisite vengeance and bloodshed you have already become accustomed, in addition to the aberrant behaviour of all considered which, in A Prophet, shows how distrustful and disgusting they each are and, consequently, no one can be honoured to do the right thing because it doesn't exist. Murder is the order of the day and you can see it all on their faces. These characters live and breathe violence becausethey don't know anything else. This is one common denominator in the gangster genre and Audiard succeeds in transferring their emotions as honest to their individual credos. In A Prophet, you don't have a choice in seeing how the story concludes and there is enough action to contribute to its overall visual impact, whether or not you are ready for it. Just think back to The Godfather and and how you felt when you first saw the scene where actor John Marley wakes up to a horse's head on his bed, and the constant beatings in Good Fellas which came came without warning.
In A Prophet the first scenes of brutal violence erupt innocently enough for the characters, even if you want to yell out, "Oh, God" in your seat. When the conclusion finally comes, it works because there is nothing left.
It is rated 18A, with the warnings: coarse language, violence and substance abuse.
April 2, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Like the Warner Brothers gangster films of the 1930s and 1940s, A Prophet takes itself seriously as do the characters in addressing the same milieu of the individual gangster who claims his own ground by his reputation and honour among his peers, such as Edward G. Robinson in Little Caesar (1930). It also shares under typical conditions which are familiar , if you remember The Godfather (1972) and Good Fellas (1990), two examples of the violence felt within the sphere of influence by the lead character and also the catalyst that propels the action until the pulse of what follows gives you a knee jerk reaction in your seat. Like the victims of the vuilence suffered by them, you are literally drawn into this conventional story and the gruelling sequences that mark the plot's inner intricacies by their penchants for creating a world that is insane without justification. Howver, in this world quite different from the Warner classics is the sheer insanity despite the familiar shots of gangsters in action and the miscellaneous gut reactions that register in your stomach as you try to make sense of it all. Any resemblance of crude behaviour and the bloody assault to the senses are meant to repulse you. Anyone who is used to the black and white classics must be prepared because the gangster film has grown up. The outpouring of vengeance is meaner and bloodier, as are the gamut of emotions to match the director's own need to satisfy those critics and fans who expect to be entertained by the ordinariness of the episodes as the plot dictates within the story's unflinching attitude and purpose.
Director Jacques Audiard uses a far different turf compared to the gangster film of yesteryear. He continues to follow the American example from the 1970s on in expressing the unsavoury people who move around in a character driven plot establishing the narrative. In A Prophet there is a defining mood and depiction of the gangster as anti-hero.
Newcomer Tahar Rahim plays Malik El Djebena. His resourcefulness becomes a complete surprise and helps give the film credibility as it slowly unfolds from the moment he goes up the escalator at the airport with an air of authority. He, essentially, becomes the new manipulator or new man in the scheme of things. Watch how he reacts to maintain his survival which, as it turns out, is exactly what is central to the film because it concentrates on the two factions vying for control: the Corsican and Italian criminal organizations. They each treat their own and dispense justice in their own way like Don Corleone in The Godfather and Henry Hill in Good Fellas. In A Prophet, you can feel the tension and power by the Arab mafia in France.
When Djebena becomes the outsider, he is arrested for a petty crime. You are then introduced to Cesar Luciani (Niels Arestrup), a Corsican kingpin who runs everything from his cell. The way he operates rivals the Don Corleones when Luciani learns of Reyeb (Hichem Yacoubi), an Arab prisoner who is going to testify in Djebena's trial. Assessing the situation, Reyeb then recruits Luciani and to get his co-operation , he threatens to kill him. As he sleeps, he is tormented by what may happen. Djebena is given protection by the Corsicans. However, as an Arab he is treated with contempt. You also learn how he has been a model prisoner and has a job when he is released. A chain of events beyond his control changes the landscape when one side wants to prove whose boss. Although it isn't always clear, you have to trust Audiard. When Djebena is asked if he is a prophet, the silence of that moment makes you think twice if he is one or not.
Given the Oxford Dictionary meaning of a prophet as someone who can foretell the future, it seems more likely he is not one but more a mole in the organization. Still one must also consider if it is all part of a war of attrition between the Corsicans and Italians. It is interesting how each side looks for a weak link until all hell breaks loose, and it comes as no surprise how it all ends. Audiard is more content in giving you propositions rather than tell you outright beyond the requisite vengeance and bloodshed you have already become accustomed, in addition to the aberrant behaviour of all considered which, in A Prophet, shows how distrustful and disgusting they each are and, consequently, no one can be honoured to do the right thing because it doesn't exist. Murder is the order of the day and you can see it all on their faces. These characters live and breathe violence becausethey don't know anything else. This is one common denominator in the gangster genre and Audiard succeeds in transferring their emotions as honest to their individual credos. In A Prophet, you don't have a choice in seeing how the story concludes and there is enough action to contribute to its overall visual impact, whether or not you are ready for it. Just think back to The Godfather and and how you felt when you first saw the scene where actor John Marley wakes up to a horse's head on his bed, and the constant beatings in Good Fellas which came came without warning.
In A Prophet the first scenes of brutal violence erupt innocently enough for the characters, even if you want to yell out, "Oh, God" in your seat. When the conclusion finally comes, it works because there is nothing left.
It is rated 18A, with the warnings: coarse language, violence and substance abuse.
April 2, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
CHLOE (STUDIOCANAL, 2010)****
By Rick Jackson
Canadian film director Atom Egoyan loves to make movies that force you to think about the motives of his characters and how they react with each other on the same plane. His predilection for daring you to be patient as you sort it all out doesn't always make sense at the end from the moviegoer's perspective, because you've been conditioned by Hollywood to expect a certain outcome and this is where the director strikes an unnerving balance between fantasy and reality.
The conventions of sex and the response from both sexes are never easy as you watch the characters behave in a controlled universe which, again, you're expecting certain things to happen. Some critics have already led you to believe that Chloe is a steamy, erotic thriller, which however, one can easily make if you believe in what you're not seeing. Besides, this is not meant to be an update of Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct. Those films expressed a bold move by Tinseltown to excite moviegoers for more. Egoyan's latest wants you to use your imagination even further by paying attention to filmmaking more as a craft and less on delivering you something more tangible and phony.
The screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson is based on the film, Nathalie directed by Anne Fontaine. It is interesting how she has created a tangled web of emotions which are more evident if you think of them in terms as the voyeur and the victim.
Amanda Seyfried plays the title character as a woman of mystery and she reminded me of Lawrence Kasdan's excellent film noir, Body Heat (1981) where Kathleen Turner went after William Hurt. In another similarity, Seyfried's innocence is comparable as a female version of Robert Wagner's role in the 1956 original version of A Kiss Before Dying.
It is important for you to remember what is up there on the big screen and the motives of the main characters in Egoyan's new film: Catherine, David and Chloe, if you are to understand everything.
Seyfried definitely excites you as she literally pushes her way into a long married couple with her desire for something bold as part of her plan to make Catherine, the wife, jealous and curious of what it is like to have sex with another woman. Chloe is a vixen who obviously gets her way and her wiles dictate exactly where she's going.
Julianne Moore gives a strong performance as Catherine, the sexually repressed wife ofhusband David (Liam Neeson) and mother to her son Michael (Max Thieriot). Together they are happier than they think and the appearance of Chloe threatens it, even if they don't know it at the time. Like them, you are seduced in believing what is developing here is your average story of a husband cheating on his wife. As you watch and listen carefully, you know this is the reason Egoyan has tricked you into being part of the seduction. Just as you were exposed to the bold and adventurous world of sex in 1994's Exotica and the world of celebrity in Where The Truth Lies (2005), you are invited to explore the inhibitions and uncertainties of a married couple whose love is tested by the intervention of the appearance of infidelity and its consequences. As you wade through the director's omnipresent opaque world, your individual curiosity matches the characters and when your imagination doesn't match, you sit up and take notice with a big wwwhat!
How we have come to know ourselves is open to question and it is here the film thrusts your psyche in an upheaveal where normalcy doesn't exist because it can't. What is equally important to remember are the fundamental realties of what you are seeing because this is going on for real somewhere.
Chloe succeeds in transferring your secret desires of sexuality and seeing some of them become true.
It is rated 18A, with the warnings: nudity, sexual content and coarse language.
April 16, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Canadian film director Atom Egoyan loves to make movies that force you to think about the motives of his characters and how they react with each other on the same plane. His predilection for daring you to be patient as you sort it all out doesn't always make sense at the end from the moviegoer's perspective, because you've been conditioned by Hollywood to expect a certain outcome and this is where the director strikes an unnerving balance between fantasy and reality.
The conventions of sex and the response from both sexes are never easy as you watch the characters behave in a controlled universe which, again, you're expecting certain things to happen. Some critics have already led you to believe that Chloe is a steamy, erotic thriller, which however, one can easily make if you believe in what you're not seeing. Besides, this is not meant to be an update of Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct. Those films expressed a bold move by Tinseltown to excite moviegoers for more. Egoyan's latest wants you to use your imagination even further by paying attention to filmmaking more as a craft and less on delivering you something more tangible and phony.
The screenplay by Erin Cressida Wilson is based on the film, Nathalie directed by Anne Fontaine. It is interesting how she has created a tangled web of emotions which are more evident if you think of them in terms as the voyeur and the victim.
Amanda Seyfried plays the title character as a woman of mystery and she reminded me of Lawrence Kasdan's excellent film noir, Body Heat (1981) where Kathleen Turner went after William Hurt. In another similarity, Seyfried's innocence is comparable as a female version of Robert Wagner's role in the 1956 original version of A Kiss Before Dying.
It is important for you to remember what is up there on the big screen and the motives of the main characters in Egoyan's new film: Catherine, David and Chloe, if you are to understand everything.
Seyfried definitely excites you as she literally pushes her way into a long married couple with her desire for something bold as part of her plan to make Catherine, the wife, jealous and curious of what it is like to have sex with another woman. Chloe is a vixen who obviously gets her way and her wiles dictate exactly where she's going.
Julianne Moore gives a strong performance as Catherine, the sexually repressed wife ofhusband David (Liam Neeson) and mother to her son Michael (Max Thieriot). Together they are happier than they think and the appearance of Chloe threatens it, even if they don't know it at the time. Like them, you are seduced in believing what is developing here is your average story of a husband cheating on his wife. As you watch and listen carefully, you know this is the reason Egoyan has tricked you into being part of the seduction. Just as you were exposed to the bold and adventurous world of sex in 1994's Exotica and the world of celebrity in Where The Truth Lies (2005), you are invited to explore the inhibitions and uncertainties of a married couple whose love is tested by the intervention of the appearance of infidelity and its consequences. As you wade through the director's omnipresent opaque world, your individual curiosity matches the characters and when your imagination doesn't match, you sit up and take notice with a big wwwhat!
How we have come to know ourselves is open to question and it is here the film thrusts your psyche in an upheaveal where normalcy doesn't exist because it can't. What is equally important to remember are the fundamental realties of what you are seeing because this is going on for real somewhere.
Chloe succeeds in transferring your secret desires of sexuality and seeing some of them become true.
It is rated 18A, with the warnings: nudity, sexual content and coarse language.
April 16, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
CRAZY HEART (FOX SEARCHLIGHT, 2009)***
By Rick Jackson
Having seen Crazy Heart after Jeff Bridges won his long deserved Oscar for portraying washed-up singer Bad Blake, my strong opinion that critics only pay attention to the films that come out in the last two months affirms my point. Had Crazy Heart come out in the spring of 2009, it would have been passed over and totally ignored. If this means that I wished Bridges didn't win, it doesn't. I couldn't be happier for him because he has been in many films which have been overlooked and unappreciated by both critics and fans.
Ever since Fat City (1972) for director John Huston, Bridges has impressed me as an actor. Later this year he is in the long awaited sequel to Tron, a film he was also good in but, alas, didn't get the same recognition as Crazy Heart when it came during the summer of 1982.
In Crazy Heart, he plays a familiar character, if you remember Honky Tonk Man (1982) and Tender Mercies (1983). Still, Crazy Heart redeems itself by focussing on a more relevant aspect of being a country singer, and this is the its veracity in telling just how hard it is to get back on top after years of abuse from alcoholism.
For anyone who has ever interviewed a country singer, Maggie Gylenhaal's Jean is as real as any portrayed in the movies. Her nervousness imbues her character with such honesty, you hope she will be be able to finish it, and Bridges injects in Blake the requisite understanding of her lack of experience and he ends up making her feel more comfortable. It all contributes to the overall credibility of what you're seeing.
It doesn't matter if Bridges doesn't give a stronger performance. He conveys the utter reality of an artist who desperately wants to be remembered for a career that has had its ups and downs. He is as real as he can get in giving a true to life performance in the music business and he succeeds in giving what his fans want. This is another chance to see and hear him again.
He also secretly hopes that Jean's article about him will revive interest in his songs.
For Jean, she hopes that her interview will be a step up for her in her career. Not everyone gets a chance to interview a famous name like Bad Blake.
Robert Duvall lends excellent support as Wayne, Blake's old friend who doesn't want him to fall back any further and in a key scene in the second half, you see how he wishes he would give up the bottle because it isn't doing him any good.
In a surprising bit of casting, Colin Farrell plays Tommy Sweet, one of Blake's rivals. He is very convincing on stage.
Written and directed by Scott Cooper, Crazy Heart succeeds as an honest film about country music, despite any reservations about Bridges. You may want to see more of his earlier work. There are some gems to discover.
Crazy Heart is rated 14A, with the warnings: coarse language and substance abuse.
April 14, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
F
Having seen Crazy Heart after Jeff Bridges won his long deserved Oscar for portraying washed-up singer Bad Blake, my strong opinion that critics only pay attention to the films that come out in the last two months affirms my point. Had Crazy Heart come out in the spring of 2009, it would have been passed over and totally ignored. If this means that I wished Bridges didn't win, it doesn't. I couldn't be happier for him because he has been in many films which have been overlooked and unappreciated by both critics and fans.
Ever since Fat City (1972) for director John Huston, Bridges has impressed me as an actor. Later this year he is in the long awaited sequel to Tron, a film he was also good in but, alas, didn't get the same recognition as Crazy Heart when it came during the summer of 1982.
In Crazy Heart, he plays a familiar character, if you remember Honky Tonk Man (1982) and Tender Mercies (1983). Still, Crazy Heart redeems itself by focussing on a more relevant aspect of being a country singer, and this is the its veracity in telling just how hard it is to get back on top after years of abuse from alcoholism.
For anyone who has ever interviewed a country singer, Maggie Gylenhaal's Jean is as real as any portrayed in the movies. Her nervousness imbues her character with such honesty, you hope she will be be able to finish it, and Bridges injects in Blake the requisite understanding of her lack of experience and he ends up making her feel more comfortable. It all contributes to the overall credibility of what you're seeing.
It doesn't matter if Bridges doesn't give a stronger performance. He conveys the utter reality of an artist who desperately wants to be remembered for a career that has had its ups and downs. He is as real as he can get in giving a true to life performance in the music business and he succeeds in giving what his fans want. This is another chance to see and hear him again.
He also secretly hopes that Jean's article about him will revive interest in his songs.
For Jean, she hopes that her interview will be a step up for her in her career. Not everyone gets a chance to interview a famous name like Bad Blake.
Robert Duvall lends excellent support as Wayne, Blake's old friend who doesn't want him to fall back any further and in a key scene in the second half, you see how he wishes he would give up the bottle because it isn't doing him any good.
In a surprising bit of casting, Colin Farrell plays Tommy Sweet, one of Blake's rivals. He is very convincing on stage.
Written and directed by Scott Cooper, Crazy Heart succeeds as an honest film about country music, despite any reservations about Bridges. You may want to see more of his earlier work. There are some gems to discover.
Crazy Heart is rated 14A, with the warnings: coarse language and substance abuse.
April 14, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
F
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
SHUTTER ISLAND (PARAMOUNT, 2010)****
By Rick Jackson
Right from the start, Robbie Robertson's music score sets the tone for this top notch psychological drama about two detectives who become embroiled in a story of such complex and intriguing nature, it is its simplicity and use of similar techniques by director Martin Scorsese that grab you literally by the neck until the end when you find out exactly what's going on.
As you watch it all unfold, you know from the opening this is no ordinary disappearance for detectives Teddy Daniels (Leonardo di Caprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo)and what each uncovers is part of the maze created by screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis. The twists and turns almost make you, the moviegoer, have been either duped or been drugged as you watch people come and go without explanation and the story quickly becomes entangled in a web of mistrust and innocence gone astray by the secrets locked inside and what you think is an ordinary lighthouse. Added to this is the truth behind the characters you meet which increasingly become hidden and more secretive as the plot develops.
Both Scorsese and Kalogridis keep you in the dark as hallucinations and visions contribute to the confusion and chaos of Daniels who thinks he is having only a headache. With the introduction of Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) what has so far been straight comes unglued as time marches on and everything has the appearance of going completely amok without any rhyme oe reason. It is also the mark of a good filmmaker like Scorsese whose masterful direction and knowledge as a director's director has turned this entire tale into something extraordinary to remember largely because he wants you to stick by what is going on and remainundefeated in assessing the plot beyond what is bravely simple in both its delivery and tendency not to be predictable. What it all means gets nicely sorted out by film's end with a neat twist later on which may or may not add to your perception of the story by either puzzling or maddening you by what has preceded it.
DiCaprio is well cast as the WASP hero with a history the plot reveals slowly so you can appreciate the subtle nuances and simple musical interludes that pervade the screen with regularity. It is all part of the screenwriter who has intended to add depth to the fragmented pieces that are given to you like a thousand piece puzzle without the last piece to tell you who it is or what it is.
The mystery behind the film's title conveys the sublety that there is an evil monster loose, especially in the scenes with George (Jackie Earle Haley) and Daniels and it is up to your understanding (or lack of) that will make sense of this or not.
Scorsese directs each sequence with such brevity, you hope for lighter moments. They do come, mostly during the first hour with Kingsley and Max Von Sydow whose role as Dr. Naering is respectfully mysterious. He is surprisingly delightful in his approach to a character who draws a fine line between being despicable or just plain evil by his nonchalant vocal delivery which is given with an utter sense of unseemly reality. You just aren't sure where he fits in and it adds to the mystery.
As for DiCaprio you may, perhaps, be wondering where he fits in, too and what he is going through throughout most of the film may be a living nightmare.
The rest of the supporting cast makes the entire movie work on more than one level. Unlike the director's previous movies qhich have been unfairly criticized for one reason or another, you can't pigeon hole his latest, although some critics have tried and failed.
Ruffalo essays Chuck as your average dependable good guy and he surprises you with a part that makes him more mature than ever because he gets to do something quite different this time.
Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain) brings to Dolores, a key patient, a role that moviegoers will remember, while Emily Mortimer plays Rachel #1, and Patricia Clarkson is Rachel #2. They each add to the overall mood and atmosphere by their ability to keep you entertained and a little off guard as the plot's intricacies are revealed without warning.
While watching Shutter Island, I was reminded of two films by Alfred Hitchcock: Spellbound (1945) and Vertigo (1958). DiCaprio's tall, lean frame is reminiscent of James Stewart in the latter, especially when he tries to jump off a cliff and can't. The scenes with Kingsley bring back Leo G. Carroll as Dr. Murchison in the former. Just as you almost cringed with horror at him you will find yourself uncomfortable watching Kingsley because his demeanor gives him an edge of darkness he has only touched in some of his other films, notably Sexy Beast.
Shutter Island is not without its creepiness and shadows of uncompromising chills. There are some images that may be too mature for younger moviegoers. Ultimately, this is an unforgettable screen triumph from one of today's top film directors. He's still in top form.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: violence, disturbing content and coarse language.
March 19, 2010
Copyright 2010 Rick Jackson
Right from the start, Robbie Robertson's music score sets the tone for this top notch psychological drama about two detectives who become embroiled in a story of such complex and intriguing nature, it is its simplicity and use of similar techniques by director Martin Scorsese that grab you literally by the neck until the end when you find out exactly what's going on.
As you watch it all unfold, you know from the opening this is no ordinary disappearance for detectives Teddy Daniels (Leonardo di Caprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo)and what each uncovers is part of the maze created by screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis. The twists and turns almost make you, the moviegoer, have been either duped or been drugged as you watch people come and go without explanation and the story quickly becomes entangled in a web of mistrust and innocence gone astray by the secrets locked inside and what you think is an ordinary lighthouse. Added to this is the truth behind the characters you meet which increasingly become hidden and more secretive as the plot develops.
Both Scorsese and Kalogridis keep you in the dark as hallucinations and visions contribute to the confusion and chaos of Daniels who thinks he is having only a headache. With the introduction of Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) what has so far been straight comes unglued as time marches on and everything has the appearance of going completely amok without any rhyme oe reason. It is also the mark of a good filmmaker like Scorsese whose masterful direction and knowledge as a director's director has turned this entire tale into something extraordinary to remember largely because he wants you to stick by what is going on and remainundefeated in assessing the plot beyond what is bravely simple in both its delivery and tendency not to be predictable. What it all means gets nicely sorted out by film's end with a neat twist later on which may or may not add to your perception of the story by either puzzling or maddening you by what has preceded it.
DiCaprio is well cast as the WASP hero with a history the plot reveals slowly so you can appreciate the subtle nuances and simple musical interludes that pervade the screen with regularity. It is all part of the screenwriter who has intended to add depth to the fragmented pieces that are given to you like a thousand piece puzzle without the last piece to tell you who it is or what it is.
The mystery behind the film's title conveys the sublety that there is an evil monster loose, especially in the scenes with George (Jackie Earle Haley) and Daniels and it is up to your understanding (or lack of) that will make sense of this or not.
Scorsese directs each sequence with such brevity, you hope for lighter moments. They do come, mostly during the first hour with Kingsley and Max Von Sydow whose role as Dr. Naering is respectfully mysterious. He is surprisingly delightful in his approach to a character who draws a fine line between being despicable or just plain evil by his nonchalant vocal delivery which is given with an utter sense of unseemly reality. You just aren't sure where he fits in and it adds to the mystery.
As for DiCaprio you may, perhaps, be wondering where he fits in, too and what he is going through throughout most of the film may be a living nightmare.
The rest of the supporting cast makes the entire movie work on more than one level. Unlike the director's previous movies qhich have been unfairly criticized for one reason or another, you can't pigeon hole his latest, although some critics have tried and failed.
Ruffalo essays Chuck as your average dependable good guy and he surprises you with a part that makes him more mature than ever because he gets to do something quite different this time.
Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain) brings to Dolores, a key patient, a role that moviegoers will remember, while Emily Mortimer plays Rachel #1, and Patricia Clarkson is Rachel #2. They each add to the overall mood and atmosphere by their ability to keep you entertained and a little off guard as the plot's intricacies are revealed without warning.
While watching Shutter Island, I was reminded of two films by Alfred Hitchcock: Spellbound (1945) and Vertigo (1958). DiCaprio's tall, lean frame is reminiscent of James Stewart in the latter, especially when he tries to jump off a cliff and can't. The scenes with Kingsley bring back Leo G. Carroll as Dr. Murchison in the former. Just as you almost cringed with horror at him you will find yourself uncomfortable watching Kingsley because his demeanor gives him an edge of darkness he has only touched in some of his other films, notably Sexy Beast.
Shutter Island is not without its creepiness and shadows of uncompromising chills. There are some images that may be too mature for younger moviegoers. Ultimately, this is an unforgettable screen triumph from one of today's top film directors. He's still in top form.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: violence, disturbing content and coarse language.
March 19, 2010
Copyright 2010 Rick Jackson
Monday, April 12, 2010
THE WHITE RIBBON (MONGREL MEDIA, 2010)****
By Rick Jackson
Written and directed by Michael Haneke, The White Ribbon is a quietly told masterpiece that reminded me of Ingmar Bergman's 1983 classic, Fanny And Alexander. Both films are shot in black and white and deal with stories that are both personal and subjective.
Like another of Haneke's films, Cache (2005), his latest is simple and yet mysterious because you become absorbed by the disturbing series of events that open both films and as you continue to watch you find yourself asking more questions than finding answers to the "why?"that surrounds the townsfolk in a small town in Northern Germany, and the deep dark secretsin the prevailing winds of the past haunted by the narrator's theories, who also happens to be the schoolteacher (Ernst Jacobi). He is played as a much younger man by Christian Fiedel. As you begin to be thrown into the dramatic elements beginning with the town doctor who is injured one morning by a trip wire while riding his horse, you start thinking about it, and the other incidents: the burning of a barn, the murder of a child, and the secret knowledge shared by some of the inhabitants who may be responsible for everything back in 1913-1914 before the outbreak of World War I.
The fact that the film is set in a small place is also part of Haneke's modus operandi because he likes to make movies that are surrounded by spiritual and moral events, especially by a group of children who swear by the upbringing of their parents which have made them superior when compared to other kids who haven't had the same.
In the November/December 2009 issue of Film Comment, Alexander Horwath interviewed Haneke about about his work and how his ideas influenced the making of The White Ribbon. His use of a narrator explains why the story is in flashback and how it is connected years later in the same century when the young men and women of the village are much older, although you only meet them in their younger days when the schoolteacher knew them.
Haneke doesn't base his latest on any book or other adaptation. It is an original screenplay inspired by his own way of thinking of how film today lacks a sense of purpose. By putting his story in the past, he automatically puts whoever sees The White Ribbon in the right frame of mind. You know exactly where he is going and he demands you to keep watching. In this respect, he doesn't have to worry about whether or not you will stay with him. I might add that he is dead on in achieving his goal at making a film with you, the moviegoer with whose undivided attention he gets without the spate of mayhem or sound and fury of car chases and bullets.
The main character, the schoolteacher, is an interesting one because you are hoping he will tell you everything you want to know. I won't say if he does, but it is a role that forces you to wade through all the evidence of his memories and the nice little story he tells you from an important period in his life which you, of course, have to realize it is being told from his point of view. Someone else from that same time might not agree with his. Along the way as you patiently see and hear everything there is to tell, you have to also ask yourself if you believe with each plot thread the veracity of what happened.
Haneke has created an engaging tale and, like Cache, you are equally frustrated and entertained by the plot twists and turns which are all part of the director's personal vision. He wants you to think more of why and, besides, there is nothing wrong with challenging the individual moviegoer for a change.
I have compared The White Ribbon to Fanny and Alexander because the scenes with the pastor's family reminded me of the same discipline meted out by the father in the Bergman film. The father in both films loves his children and it was normal for the children to be treated more strictly.
In The White Ribbon, the father/pastor (Burghart Klaussner) is more tolerant and uncderstanding and it is through the narrator's words we get to know him, and the rest of the town.
Haneke told Horwath in the same article in Film Comment that he makes a film that serves his own interests. At the same time he respects the public and what they have to say about his films.
The White Ribbon remains a quintessential example of the director's craftmanship and storytelling. It is also compelling from start to finish.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: sexual content and disturbing content.
April 9, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Written and directed by Michael Haneke, The White Ribbon is a quietly told masterpiece that reminded me of Ingmar Bergman's 1983 classic, Fanny And Alexander. Both films are shot in black and white and deal with stories that are both personal and subjective.
Like another of Haneke's films, Cache (2005), his latest is simple and yet mysterious because you become absorbed by the disturbing series of events that open both films and as you continue to watch you find yourself asking more questions than finding answers to the "why?"that surrounds the townsfolk in a small town in Northern Germany, and the deep dark secretsin the prevailing winds of the past haunted by the narrator's theories, who also happens to be the schoolteacher (Ernst Jacobi). He is played as a much younger man by Christian Fiedel. As you begin to be thrown into the dramatic elements beginning with the town doctor who is injured one morning by a trip wire while riding his horse, you start thinking about it, and the other incidents: the burning of a barn, the murder of a child, and the secret knowledge shared by some of the inhabitants who may be responsible for everything back in 1913-1914 before the outbreak of World War I.
The fact that the film is set in a small place is also part of Haneke's modus operandi because he likes to make movies that are surrounded by spiritual and moral events, especially by a group of children who swear by the upbringing of their parents which have made them superior when compared to other kids who haven't had the same.
In the November/December 2009 issue of Film Comment, Alexander Horwath interviewed Haneke about about his work and how his ideas influenced the making of The White Ribbon. His use of a narrator explains why the story is in flashback and how it is connected years later in the same century when the young men and women of the village are much older, although you only meet them in their younger days when the schoolteacher knew them.
Haneke doesn't base his latest on any book or other adaptation. It is an original screenplay inspired by his own way of thinking of how film today lacks a sense of purpose. By putting his story in the past, he automatically puts whoever sees The White Ribbon in the right frame of mind. You know exactly where he is going and he demands you to keep watching. In this respect, he doesn't have to worry about whether or not you will stay with him. I might add that he is dead on in achieving his goal at making a film with you, the moviegoer with whose undivided attention he gets without the spate of mayhem or sound and fury of car chases and bullets.
The main character, the schoolteacher, is an interesting one because you are hoping he will tell you everything you want to know. I won't say if he does, but it is a role that forces you to wade through all the evidence of his memories and the nice little story he tells you from an important period in his life which you, of course, have to realize it is being told from his point of view. Someone else from that same time might not agree with his. Along the way as you patiently see and hear everything there is to tell, you have to also ask yourself if you believe with each plot thread the veracity of what happened.
Haneke has created an engaging tale and, like Cache, you are equally frustrated and entertained by the plot twists and turns which are all part of the director's personal vision. He wants you to think more of why and, besides, there is nothing wrong with challenging the individual moviegoer for a change.
I have compared The White Ribbon to Fanny and Alexander because the scenes with the pastor's family reminded me of the same discipline meted out by the father in the Bergman film. The father in both films loves his children and it was normal for the children to be treated more strictly.
In The White Ribbon, the father/pastor (Burghart Klaussner) is more tolerant and uncderstanding and it is through the narrator's words we get to know him, and the rest of the town.
Haneke told Horwath in the same article in Film Comment that he makes a film that serves his own interests. At the same time he respects the public and what they have to say about his films.
The White Ribbon remains a quintessential example of the director's craftmanship and storytelling. It is also compelling from start to finish.
It is rated 14A, with the warnings: sexual content and disturbing content.
April 9, 2010
Copyright Rick Jackson 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)