Released in 1936, "The Great Ziegfeld" tells a fictionalized version of the life of Florenz Ziegfeld. A person I have some familiarity with due to my background in the community theater. In fact I've even played the voice of Ziegfeld in "The Will Rogers Follies." The movie stars William Powell and features music by Walter Donaldson and Irvin Berlin. This adds some authenticity to the movie music as Berlin's music was part of the original Ziegfeld Follies.
The film itself was large in scope and short on actual substance, like many of Ziegfeld's most famous productions. The movie consisted of Ziegfeld being down and out, just to bounce back bigger and more successful then ever. After the third time this happens the movie becomes too predictable. However, since it is about the life of Ziegfeld there is not much that the script writers could do about that.
This leaves the main appeal of the movie to be in the singing and dancing numbers. Fortunately, these are much better then those found in "The Broadway Melody." The numbers made me feel as though I was watching numbers that could be truly labeled as Ziegfeldian. Since the rest of the movie had a sub par plot and no acting that really stood out, the singing and dancing was the only noteworthy part of the movie.
While the singing and dancing was great, it is dated. If you enjoy watching the pageantry of the theater of old than this movie has something for you. If not this probably isn't worth your time. It gets 2 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Just Say No to the 3rd Dimension
America was built on progress. We invent, we discover, we innovate. Our economy is based on new ideas being brought forward and we as a country, embracing it. This process creates new jobs, changes our quality of life and gives us a new way of thinking. Unfortunately, this process is not always perfect. In several instances the changes don't work and they are rejected. Nowhere is this more true then in technology and more specifically entertainment technology. There are landfills filled with abandoned technology like betamax, zip discs and mini discs. Technology that may have made our lives easier that we as a society have rejected.
With each of these failed technologies there was a push to incorporate them into our lives. Over the past year the entertainment industry has been trying to push one of these down our throats. That technology is 3D films and television. Before I continue, let me stress that 3D has it's place. It can enhance film or television, but we are not ready for it and it is being abused.
Every time I go to the theater now to see the latest big budget feature I have to prepare myself to wear a pair of plastic uncomfortable glasses over the glasses I normally have to wear. I also have to bring extra money for me and my date since the movie theater charges extra so that I can wear these glasses. Glasses, which I am asked not to keep, but to recycle into a box so that they can be cleaned so that someone else can pay money to wear them. Technology is being developed that will allow us to watch 3D without the glasses, is it necessary for us to watch movies in 3D now when we could wait and demand that we have 3D when 3D is ready?
This isn't the only area were we are being forced to accept 3D as the norm though. Over the past year, television manufacturers have been pushing us to buy 3D televisions, when many of us have just recently upgraded to a new flat screen HDTV. These 3D TV's are currently a waste of money. There are a handful of channels that offer 3D part of the time and as for those movies we watched in the theater do you know how many of those are available in 3D? Two. That's it. And the big 3D movie, "Avatar," you can't even buy it in 3D yet. And when it does come out in 3D the only way you will be able to get it is if you have a Panasonic 3D television. But wait there's more. Those plastic glasses from the movie theaters that we use don't work with 3D televisions, instead you need $100 dollar a pair glasses for your entire family to enjoy the 3D experience. These glasses are not even standardized yet, meaning that if you have two different brands of televisions, the glasses from one television won't work on the other television.
I wish I could say that technology was the only problem, but it isn't. The actual 3D content is also a problem. Except for cartoons and "Avatar" all of the other 3D films released this year have been shot using a 2D camera and then converted to 3D after. This technique is just a scam to get an extra couple of bucks from all the people going to see the movie so that their box office is a little higher. And this practice is increasing over the next year, the Harry Potter films, Green Lantern, Captain America and Thor will all come out in the next year, all were filmed in 2D and all will be converted to 3D. In addition to this, earlier this week George Lucas announced that he will be converting the Star Wars films into 3D. These films weren't meant to be in 3D. But now George is going to milk his cash cow for a little more money.
I'm not anti-3D, I'm very excited about the new 3D Nintendo DS that will be released next year, a 3D system that doesn't require glasses. I just don't think that the movie industry and the television industry is ready to support the move to 3D. There is something that we can do to show them this. Don't buy into it. When you go see a movie that was not shot in 3D, go see it in 2D. Don't buy the 3D television until it's ready and standardized. We as consumers have the ability to control this. Vote with your dollars and say no to the 3rd dimension.
With each of these failed technologies there was a push to incorporate them into our lives. Over the past year the entertainment industry has been trying to push one of these down our throats. That technology is 3D films and television. Before I continue, let me stress that 3D has it's place. It can enhance film or television, but we are not ready for it and it is being abused.
Every time I go to the theater now to see the latest big budget feature I have to prepare myself to wear a pair of plastic uncomfortable glasses over the glasses I normally have to wear. I also have to bring extra money for me and my date since the movie theater charges extra so that I can wear these glasses. Glasses, which I am asked not to keep, but to recycle into a box so that they can be cleaned so that someone else can pay money to wear them. Technology is being developed that will allow us to watch 3D without the glasses, is it necessary for us to watch movies in 3D now when we could wait and demand that we have 3D when 3D is ready?
This isn't the only area were we are being forced to accept 3D as the norm though. Over the past year, television manufacturers have been pushing us to buy 3D televisions, when many of us have just recently upgraded to a new flat screen HDTV. These 3D TV's are currently a waste of money. There are a handful of channels that offer 3D part of the time and as for those movies we watched in the theater do you know how many of those are available in 3D? Two. That's it. And the big 3D movie, "Avatar," you can't even buy it in 3D yet. And when it does come out in 3D the only way you will be able to get it is if you have a Panasonic 3D television. But wait there's more. Those plastic glasses from the movie theaters that we use don't work with 3D televisions, instead you need $100 dollar a pair glasses for your entire family to enjoy the 3D experience. These glasses are not even standardized yet, meaning that if you have two different brands of televisions, the glasses from one television won't work on the other television.
I wish I could say that technology was the only problem, but it isn't. The actual 3D content is also a problem. Except for cartoons and "Avatar" all of the other 3D films released this year have been shot using a 2D camera and then converted to 3D after. This technique is just a scam to get an extra couple of bucks from all the people going to see the movie so that their box office is a little higher. And this practice is increasing over the next year, the Harry Potter films, Green Lantern, Captain America and Thor will all come out in the next year, all were filmed in 2D and all will be converted to 3D. In addition to this, earlier this week George Lucas announced that he will be converting the Star Wars films into 3D. These films weren't meant to be in 3D. But now George is going to milk his cash cow for a little more money.
I'm not anti-3D, I'm very excited about the new 3D Nintendo DS that will be released next year, a 3D system that doesn't require glasses. I just don't think that the movie industry and the television industry is ready to support the move to 3D. There is something that we can do to show them this. Don't buy into it. When you go see a movie that was not shot in 3D, go see it in 2D. Don't buy the 3D television until it's ready and standardized. We as consumers have the ability to control this. Vote with your dollars and say no to the 3rd dimension.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
The first decade of the 20th century will be remembered in movie cinema as the rise of the comic book movie. Big budgets, explosions and special effects drove these movies into the theater were they currently seem to be parked and have no intention of leaving. These movies tend to leave little to the imagination and just rely on the costumes to drive the movies with some slick dialogue. Fortunately, these movies have opened the door for other franchises to be revived and for geek movies to rise and be a dominant force in cinema. It also opened the door for non-superhero comics to get a chance at being made into a movie. Thanks to this we were able to get the movie masterpiece of "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World."
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - New Movie Review
The first decade of the 20th century will be remembered in movie cinema as the rise of the comic book movie. Big budgets, explosions and special effects drove these movies into the theater were they currently seem to be parked and have no intention of leaving. These movies tend to leave little to the imagination and just rely on the costumes to drive the movies with some slick dialogue. Fortunately, these movies have opened the door for other franchises to be revived and for geek movies to rise and be a dominant force in cinema. It also opened the door for non-superhero comics to get a chance at being made into a movie. Thanks to this we were able to get the movie masterpiece of "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World."
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Mutiny on the Bounty - The Oscar Project Part VIII
Finally the Oscar Project continues!! Part VIII focuses on the 1935 film "Mutiny on the Bounty." It stars Clark Gable as Mr. Christian and Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. It was directed by Frank Lloyd. Starting this film my only previous exposure to the story was thanks to "The Simpson" spoof done a few years back. The spoof didn't really give away much of the plot since the title takes care of that.
While looking into the history of this movie I learned the fascinating story about which this movie is based. The events depicted in the movie took place near the end of the 18th century. From what I read many of the differences between the movie and the real life events are trivial. The story follows that the H.M.S. Bounty was to travel to Tahiti to transplant Bread Fruit plants to the West Indies. After the ship left Tahiti, the ship crew committed mutiny and overtook it. Captain Bligh and those loyal to him that could fit on the launch boat were set a drift and they miraculously were able to make it to a friendly shore. In the meantime Christian and the mutineers sailed back to Tahiti and then to the island of Pitcairn to hide from a returning British ship. The movie focuses on this being a turning point for the way that sailors were treated by their captain at sea. It was interesting to later learn that several descendants from the voyage of the Bounty are still alive and living on the islands of Tahiti and Pitcairn.
Enough about the history lets take a look at the movie. The scripting of this movie was excellent. It did a very good job of showing why the men needed to commit mutiny and turned Bligh into the villain that he needed to be. Once the mutiny took place it then gave Bligh several chances to show why he was made a captain of a ship and gave him a few redeeming qualities instead of leaving him a villain. I like that this movie included this depth of character. Though a bit more closure on his character would have been welcome. The small bits of humor sprinkled throughout the movie gave welcome relief to how cruel the treatment of the men was portrayed.
Fortunately for the scriptwriter he had some incredible talent reading the lines. Leading the cast was Clark Gable playing the lead mutineer. By placing Gable in the role, he was able to use his ability for reason to show why the crew did not mutiny earlier and allowed the audience to be okay with the mutiny once it happened. He was upstaged I felt however by the performance of Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. The character could have easily been one note and only portrayed as a villain. However Laughton adds layers. He portrays the wickedness of the character perfectly, but also captures the pride that the character has, his loyalty to the navy and his great skill in being a captain. By the end of the film there is even some sympathy for the character, but the wickedness was portrayed so well that the sympathy that is generated does not take away from the story.
The movie, with it's simple plot, feels like some of the blockbusters of today. While as it is filmed it may not win an Oscar, it feels like one of the tent pole blockbusters that a studio would plan their summer around, and one of the good ones too. If you want to check out an old classic movie but usually aren't into the more "artsy" stories this is for you. I really enjoyed this movie and it gets a 4.5 out of 5 stars.
While looking into the history of this movie I learned the fascinating story about which this movie is based. The events depicted in the movie took place near the end of the 18th century. From what I read many of the differences between the movie and the real life events are trivial. The story follows that the H.M.S. Bounty was to travel to Tahiti to transplant Bread Fruit plants to the West Indies. After the ship left Tahiti, the ship crew committed mutiny and overtook it. Captain Bligh and those loyal to him that could fit on the launch boat were set a drift and they miraculously were able to make it to a friendly shore. In the meantime Christian and the mutineers sailed back to Tahiti and then to the island of Pitcairn to hide from a returning British ship. The movie focuses on this being a turning point for the way that sailors were treated by their captain at sea. It was interesting to later learn that several descendants from the voyage of the Bounty are still alive and living on the islands of Tahiti and Pitcairn.
Enough about the history lets take a look at the movie. The scripting of this movie was excellent. It did a very good job of showing why the men needed to commit mutiny and turned Bligh into the villain that he needed to be. Once the mutiny took place it then gave Bligh several chances to show why he was made a captain of a ship and gave him a few redeeming qualities instead of leaving him a villain. I like that this movie included this depth of character. Though a bit more closure on his character would have been welcome. The small bits of humor sprinkled throughout the movie gave welcome relief to how cruel the treatment of the men was portrayed.
Fortunately for the scriptwriter he had some incredible talent reading the lines. Leading the cast was Clark Gable playing the lead mutineer. By placing Gable in the role, he was able to use his ability for reason to show why the crew did not mutiny earlier and allowed the audience to be okay with the mutiny once it happened. He was upstaged I felt however by the performance of Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. The character could have easily been one note and only portrayed as a villain. However Laughton adds layers. He portrays the wickedness of the character perfectly, but also captures the pride that the character has, his loyalty to the navy and his great skill in being a captain. By the end of the film there is even some sympathy for the character, but the wickedness was portrayed so well that the sympathy that is generated does not take away from the story.
The movie, with it's simple plot, feels like some of the blockbusters of today. While as it is filmed it may not win an Oscar, it feels like one of the tent pole blockbusters that a studio would plan their summer around, and one of the good ones too. If you want to check out an old classic movie but usually aren't into the more "artsy" stories this is for you. I really enjoyed this movie and it gets a 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Inception - New Movie Review
When it comes to movies, this year has sucked. Particularly the summer blockbuster season. Until now the only good movie that has been released was Toy Story 3, and if it wasn't for the last 10 minutes of that film I probably would have walked away disappointed. That fortunately changed with the release of Inception. I feel as though I would do the film a disservice if I did not go into plot elements that would spoil the movie. If you were looking for my recommendation on this film let me say that this film isn't for everyone. If you enjoyed films like Memento and Fight Club, you will enjoy this movie. If you don't like thinking during a movie don't go. This movie gets a high recommendation from me and is my favorite movie of the year so far, so go see it and then come back here to read my thoughts.
I want to jump into the meat of the story, but let's start with the acting in this fine film. Leonardo DiCaprio continues to prove he is one of the finest actors of this generation. He is near the point where if he is in a movie I will automatically think about going to see it. Not necessarily for his acting style, but because he is smart about the projects he works on. In this movie he perfectly played the man on the edge. But he is supported by a strong supporting cast. There wasn't a single person that felt as if they were forced in, everyone had their part and played it to perfection. Joseph Gordon Levitt takes another step in what I hope will be his ascent into a high profile acting career. Ellen Page still has work to do to separate herself from Juno, but since I love that character so much it's not an issue yet. Marion Colltiard plays a great creepy femme fatale and everyone else works well together with these four.
However, the acting is nothing compared to the beautiful direction that Christopher Nolan puts on screen. The changing of the world and manipulation of the dream scape was done just perfectly. The zero gravity sequences and the rotating hallways looked fantastic. I've learned since seeing them that it was all done with wires and an actual rotating hallway, not computers and green screens. It helped make these scenes seem so real. The action was easy to follow and didn't overpower the main story but complimented it. The only directing misstep I found was that the van falling for as long as it did. It became a little too much by the end. I realize that this was done in slow motion due to the rules of the world they set up, but by the time it crashed, it became almost comical. Fewer shots of the van or perhaps having it crash a little later in the movie could have helped.
The main draw for me though was the story. The story portrayed an original idea, something that we haven't had in a summer movie for a long time. The idea of going into someones dreams to steal an idea is cool, but then they add the layers. Dreams within dreams, rules for changing the dream world and rules for waking up. All of these things work so well together. A good choice that they made in the movie was to not focus on how they do it, just that they do it and here are the rules. I love this mechanic of not explaining what doesn't need to be explained. When people starting offering reasons for why things work, you get Midichlorians, and no one wants Midichlorians. We also get a great plot that deals with the concept of inception, planting an idea in someones mind. The entire movie felt like a great heist movie, just with a different end goal. I love heist movies, so seeing this new twist on a classic movie style was fantastic.
None of this will be the first thought on your mind as you leave the theater though. It will be focused on the ending. Once the screen goes black you will believe one of two things, the top fell or it kept spinning. Some probably will find this as a cop out, but I appreciate it for what it is. A way of having the movie live on in discussions and work it's way into your mind. Nolan has in fact worked Inception on all of us that have seen the movie by planting the idea in our heads that the entire film may have been a dream. If the top had fallen then the movie is discussed and then forgotten. If the top does not fall, and shows no sign of falling, then we all think it is a dream and we discuss clues that Nolan gave us throughout the movie. But, by putting in that small wobble, Nolan didn't give us an answer and let us debate. It also robbed people like me of saying, "I knew it the whole time." See, throughout the movie I expected a twist so I looked for clues and found many. Never seeing the children faces, the signs within the city not making sense, the nameless villains, the fact that the children did not seem to age, the fact that it was not his original totem, clues like this would have left we with a sense of accomplishment since I caught them during the movie. But, thanks to that little wobble, I am caught in an endless debate over what I think was going to happen.
At the beginning of the film Leo's character says, "What's the most resilient parasite? An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules." This movie is just like an idea, it's gnawing at my mind and will stay there for a long, long time. For this reason, and many others, it gets 5 out of 5 stars.
I want to jump into the meat of the story, but let's start with the acting in this fine film. Leonardo DiCaprio continues to prove he is one of the finest actors of this generation. He is near the point where if he is in a movie I will automatically think about going to see it. Not necessarily for his acting style, but because he is smart about the projects he works on. In this movie he perfectly played the man on the edge. But he is supported by a strong supporting cast. There wasn't a single person that felt as if they were forced in, everyone had their part and played it to perfection. Joseph Gordon Levitt takes another step in what I hope will be his ascent into a high profile acting career. Ellen Page still has work to do to separate herself from Juno, but since I love that character so much it's not an issue yet. Marion Colltiard plays a great creepy femme fatale and everyone else works well together with these four.
However, the acting is nothing compared to the beautiful direction that Christopher Nolan puts on screen. The changing of the world and manipulation of the dream scape was done just perfectly. The zero gravity sequences and the rotating hallways looked fantastic. I've learned since seeing them that it was all done with wires and an actual rotating hallway, not computers and green screens. It helped make these scenes seem so real. The action was easy to follow and didn't overpower the main story but complimented it. The only directing misstep I found was that the van falling for as long as it did. It became a little too much by the end. I realize that this was done in slow motion due to the rules of the world they set up, but by the time it crashed, it became almost comical. Fewer shots of the van or perhaps having it crash a little later in the movie could have helped.
The main draw for me though was the story. The story portrayed an original idea, something that we haven't had in a summer movie for a long time. The idea of going into someones dreams to steal an idea is cool, but then they add the layers. Dreams within dreams, rules for changing the dream world and rules for waking up. All of these things work so well together. A good choice that they made in the movie was to not focus on how they do it, just that they do it and here are the rules. I love this mechanic of not explaining what doesn't need to be explained. When people starting offering reasons for why things work, you get Midichlorians, and no one wants Midichlorians. We also get a great plot that deals with the concept of inception, planting an idea in someones mind. The entire movie felt like a great heist movie, just with a different end goal. I love heist movies, so seeing this new twist on a classic movie style was fantastic.
None of this will be the first thought on your mind as you leave the theater though. It will be focused on the ending. Once the screen goes black you will believe one of two things, the top fell or it kept spinning. Some probably will find this as a cop out, but I appreciate it for what it is. A way of having the movie live on in discussions and work it's way into your mind. Nolan has in fact worked Inception on all of us that have seen the movie by planting the idea in our heads that the entire film may have been a dream. If the top had fallen then the movie is discussed and then forgotten. If the top does not fall, and shows no sign of falling, then we all think it is a dream and we discuss clues that Nolan gave us throughout the movie. But, by putting in that small wobble, Nolan didn't give us an answer and let us debate. It also robbed people like me of saying, "I knew it the whole time." See, throughout the movie I expected a twist so I looked for clues and found many. Never seeing the children faces, the signs within the city not making sense, the nameless villains, the fact that the children did not seem to age, the fact that it was not his original totem, clues like this would have left we with a sense of accomplishment since I caught them during the movie. But, thanks to that little wobble, I am caught in an endless debate over what I think was going to happen.
At the beginning of the film Leo's character says, "What's the most resilient parasite? An idea. A single idea from the human mind can build cities. An idea can transform the world and rewrite all the rules." This movie is just like an idea, it's gnawing at my mind and will stay there for a long, long time. For this reason, and many others, it gets 5 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Dinner For Schmucks - Advanced Review
While I love a great drama or an emotional comedy that will tug at your heart strings, every once and a while a straight up comedy is needed just for some laughs. This week I was fortunate enough to catch an advanced screening of "Dinner for Schmucks", the new comedy featuring Steve Carell and Paul Rudd. I've liked this duo in their previous team-ups, "Anchorman" and "The 40 Year Old Virgin", so I was hopeful for a movie full of laughs.
Plenty of laughs were found indeed. The movie is full of funny characters that bring a lot of funny to the movie. Most of the sequences hit right on target with the only exception being the return of the crazy girlfriend Darla. Her character was one dimensional and just not funny. Fortunately, she is only in two scenes and is gone quickly. The other characters are hilarious with Steve Carell leading the way. He has made a career out of playing the idiot with the heart and if you find him funny in that type of role you will find him funny in that movie. He doesn't get all the laughs however, a Russell Brand-esque artist and an IRS auditor played by Zack Galifinakis bring in fresh jokes just when Carell's character gets stale. There are others but none bring the funny like these three. The only character problem (besides Darla) is in Paul Rudd's character. He plays the straight man in this movie, which he can play perfectly fine, but knowing what he is capable of it is disappointing to not see him and Carell go head to head in the funny department.
This issue with Rudd playing a boring straight man brings down the plot of the movie because it is his character that the movie is centered around. The actions that he makes drive the movie and it is hard to really buy Paul Rudd as a jerk in this movie. Since I couldn't see him as being self centered, the emotional beats just didn't have any effect. This means that there is no reason to watch this movie based on the plot and it must survive based on the jokes. Many of which I found very funny with each scene being funnier than the last. The funniest of which has yet to be shown or even hinted at in any of the trailers. Hopefully that stays the same.
In summary, the movie isn't about the plot it's about the jokes, which there are plenty of. Fortunately, the commercials currently out are a fair representation for the type of jokes in this movie, so if you have laughed at the commercials you will find this movie funny. It gets a solid 3 out of 5 stars.
Plenty of laughs were found indeed. The movie is full of funny characters that bring a lot of funny to the movie. Most of the sequences hit right on target with the only exception being the return of the crazy girlfriend Darla. Her character was one dimensional and just not funny. Fortunately, she is only in two scenes and is gone quickly. The other characters are hilarious with Steve Carell leading the way. He has made a career out of playing the idiot with the heart and if you find him funny in that type of role you will find him funny in that movie. He doesn't get all the laughs however, a Russell Brand-esque artist and an IRS auditor played by Zack Galifinakis bring in fresh jokes just when Carell's character gets stale. There are others but none bring the funny like these three. The only character problem (besides Darla) is in Paul Rudd's character. He plays the straight man in this movie, which he can play perfectly fine, but knowing what he is capable of it is disappointing to not see him and Carell go head to head in the funny department.
This issue with Rudd playing a boring straight man brings down the plot of the movie because it is his character that the movie is centered around. The actions that he makes drive the movie and it is hard to really buy Paul Rudd as a jerk in this movie. Since I couldn't see him as being self centered, the emotional beats just didn't have any effect. This means that there is no reason to watch this movie based on the plot and it must survive based on the jokes. Many of which I found very funny with each scene being funnier than the last. The funniest of which has yet to be shown or even hinted at in any of the trailers. Hopefully that stays the same.
In summary, the movie isn't about the plot it's about the jokes, which there are plenty of. Fortunately, the commercials currently out are a fair representation for the type of jokes in this movie, so if you have laughed at the commercials you will find this movie funny. It gets a solid 3 out of 5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)