Mom and I were looking for something to watch on Netflix, and this popped up while we were scoping out Ryan Gosling movies. Neither of us had ever heard of it, but it sounded interesting and we liked the two main actors. I really enjoyed the first half or so. They explore the characters and their relationships quite well, and it had all the makings of a complex psychological movie. (In fact, something about it really reminded me of another movie, but I can't think of what it was to save my life. Maybe Fractured? Or maybe one of many psychological films featuring Eddie Redmayne—Like Minds, Savage Grace, Glorious 39? I just don't know!)
Gosling was his usual impressive self, particularly in scenes where he was supposed to be demonstrating signs of some sort of mental illness, possibly schizophrenia. Dunst was also very good, sweet and open and a perfect balance to Gosling. Their relationship was very believable. The disintegration of their relationship was very believable. It was executed simply and effectively, and I liked the subtle flashback method that they used as well.
There was just something about the ending that didn't ring true. It felt awkward and fake compared to the rest of the film, which felt honest and real. I think I would have really liked, or even loved, this movie, but I just didn't feel great about the end.
Rating: 3.5
Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 1980s. Show all posts
Monday, July 9, 2012
Sunday, December 11, 2011
One Day (2011, U.S.)
I had been looking forward to this movie for ages. I read a review of the book in Library Journal or Booklist last year before it was first published in the U.S., bought it for the library, and read it as soon as it came out. I loved it. Of the 122 books I read last year, it was one of only 7 that I gave five stars to. I thought the concept, the writing, the everything was absolutely stellar. Therefore, I guess it was inevitable that the movie could only pale in comparison.
I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)
I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)
Rating: 3.5
I've said recently that Anne Hathaway has really been growing on me lately, and I really liked her in this. I think I've seen Jim Sturgess in a couple things, but he's never really stuck in my mind. I really liked him in this too. Their chemistry was decent, much better as friends than lovers, but it still worked. The costumes and sets really help keep the viewer oriented as the plot whizzes from year to year, from the late 1980s to the present day. Like the book it's based on, the movie's story is fundamentally good. I just didn't feel as emotionally invested in the characters as David Nicholls made me feel.(This is slightly odd, as Nicholls adapted the screenplay himself. Novels and films are inherently different mediums though, I guess.)
I don't know, I feel like I'm being unfair. If I had seen the movie without reading the book, I probably would have thought it was incredible—writing, acting, setting, and the rest. As it is though, I feel like I'm comparing a stationary star to a comet. The one just isn't as magical having experienced the other. Still, I definitely recommend the movie. (And highly recommend the book!)
Rating: 3.5
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Gia (1998, U.S.)

The writing must have been very strong, because the pacing was very good for a biographical film. Gia wanted to live life to the fullest, but she didn't really get the love and support she needed, and she turned to drugs instead. The most powerful part of this film was the ending, when Carangi was in the hospital dying. (She died in 1986 at 26 of AIDS.) It was so vivid and heartbreaking, seeing this great celebrity languishing all alone.
This was an incredible film. The tone was dark. It had a gritty, realistic feel. And a 23-year-old Angelina Jolie was already in control of her incredible acting talent and absolutely breathtaking. Costumes were perfect. And from what I've read, it was pretty historically accurate too. All in all, a winner.
Rating: 4.0
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Adam & Steve (2005, U.S.)

There are a lot of the kind of jokes I don't like—fat jokes, bathroom-type jokes, and even some gay jokes, which is especially odd considering that the movie is seemingly pro-gay. I did like that they tried to make movie that portrayed gay marriage in such a positive way, but they just made it too lowbrow.
The absolute best, most wonderful thing about it was an extended scene where a bunch of gay men dressed up in jeans, flannel, and cowboy boots and hats and did an extended country western dance. Priceless.
Rating: 1.5
Labels:
1.5,
1980s,
chris kattan,
comedy,
craig chester,
homosexuality,
malcolm gets,
new york,
parker posey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)