Showing posts with label life. Show all posts
Showing posts with label life. Show all posts

Monday, April 9, 2012

The Tree of Life (2011, U.S.)

I just don't know what to say. At all. Because what just happened? At first I thought I was going to love it. I mean, visually it was one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. The score was completely out of this world, like a best of the eerie sounding classics. (Hard to describe the subset of music I'm talking about exactly, but it is a type of music I enjoy a lot. I would love to own this soundtrack.) Then there was original music composed by one of my all time favorite composers, Alexandre Desplat. Brad Pitt wasn't bad, but this wasn't my favorite performance of his. I thought Jessica Chastain was the real star of this film, which was unfortunate because she often seemed so peripheral. Overall, it was visually and aurally stunning, and the seed of the plot was good.

But. But but but. It just tried so hard to be artsy and impressionistic that it seemed silly instead. There were dinosaurs, for crying out loud. The sound mixing was not the best, so the score often overpowered whispered lines. I found myself having to turn on subtitles a lot. The part about adult Jack could have added a lot, but I don't think it was made clear enough. Plus, Sean Penn reminded me why I never liked Sean Penn (until Milk made me want to give him a second chance).

It could have been really great, but it just tried too hard and was too self aware. So instead of brilliance and beauty, I was left with a lot of annoyance and exhaustion.

Rating: 1.5

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Never Let Me Go (2010, UK)

I just don't even know where to start with this film. To call it "heartbreakingly beautiful" would be the understatement of the century. I'm tearing up just thinking about it. It was so wonderful that I even watched the "making of" featurette, which I don't do too often. (Ironically, the last one I watched was another British boarding school setting—Like Minds.)

The concept is similar to that of The Island, but rather than being action-packed and set in the future, it is set in a very slightly alternate past and is more psychological, reflective. Basically, a group of children (possibly clones) are brought up in boarding schools and lectured on good health and the like. At 18, they move to homes around the country before beginning the process of fulfilling their purpose, which is to donate organs to "real" people. (That is the broad concept. More specifically, the story focuses on three friends and their relationships with each other.) I thought that setting it in the past is much more effective, because it is so much more plausible. Only a slight change in medical technology, no fast cars, advanced gaming systems. Just life as we know it with a slight change. The message is subtly different from the earlier film as well. It's more about accepting fate, making the best of the time you're given, and not being afraid to love. The difference is especially apparent in the operation scenes, though you'd have to see them both to know what I mean.

The mise en scène is striking and adds a lot to the story. The colors are all muted, sometimes dreary but mostly soft. The same can be said for the sounds. There isn't too much ambient noise, just things like gentle breeze and waves, quiet birdsong, and the like. It creates a sad, almost bleak and haunting feel, sort of like a waking dream. They also used a lot images that were simple but somehow beautiful, like a lot of broken toys laid out on a table, a bird sitting on a teapot, an abandoned and rusted boat on a lonely beach, a glimpse of the crescent-shaped scar on Tommy's back. One image that especially stuck with me was the children singing their school song toward the beginning. The way it was filmed made them seem so young and innocent, and it was heartbreaking because as a viewer, you know that they're headed nowhere. The importance of art to the story, and the manifestation of Tommy's inner self in his strange, wonderful drawings also adds to the sad and dreamlike feel.

Of course, the film wouldn't have been nearly as effective without the absolutely stellar cast. I've always been a fan of Keira Knightly (Ruth). I was very impressed by Carey Mulligan (Kathy) in An Education. And I could tell from The Social Network that Andrew Garfield (Tommy) was someone to watch. But in this film, and together, they were beyond brilliant. The chemistry between all three of them was palpable. They were three friends being ripped apart by the cruel circumstances of their fate. On top of this, the first half hour or so focused on them at age 12, and the child actors they cast might as well have been the three older actors 15 years ago. They look the same, have the same vocal inflections and mannerisms. Incredible. (In the making of, I learned that they made a special effort to cast kids who looked the same, and that their adult counterparts read through scenes with them and coached them as to how they would act. Very effective.) Toward the end, there's a shot of Kathy (Carey Mulligan's character) in a car, and for a second I actually thought they had flashed back in time and it was her 12-year-old self. That's how close they were. The adult actors also had to age from 18 to 28, and for Donors that can be a long and hard 10 years. The actors were fantastic in acting the emotional and physical changes of those 10 years, and the hair/makeup/costuming/whoever department did a fantastic job as well. Of all the actors, however, I just can't say enough about Andrew Garfield. His character is very complex, a big-hearted boy who has fits of rage, is nervously shy around other people and yet the object of two girls' affections, quiet and wise. He acts all these things to perfection. The most powerful scene in the entire film is one of him screaming in anguish and rage (which strikingly and powerfully echoes a similar scene that his childhood counterpart had) that goes beyond heart-wrenching to gut-wrenching. The overall film gave me the feeling that my heart was breaking into a million pieces, but this scene of Garfield's was especially powerful and moving. I won't lie, it made me sob. And sob. And sob. Truly magnificent and intense, a distillation of the feel of the rest of the film.

The score for this film was perfect. So perfect and so beautiful that the credits hadn't finished rolling but 5 minutes ago before I was on iTunes downloading it. I hate to pull out that old favorite phrase of mine, but the score really was heartbreakingly beautiful. It's hard to explain, but the feeling I get from listening to it is like the stream of time is slowly, inexorably flowing by the characters and there's nothing they can do to stop it but capture a few moments of love and beauty. Imagine that in musical form, and that's Rachel Portman's stunning score. I also mentioned the children singing the school song earlier, but one additional piece of music that really made the movie was a cassette that young Tommy gave to young Kathy with the song "Never Let Me Go" on it. She listens to it as a young woman and as an adult (and presumably quite often in the interim), and both the young actress and the older one have a wealth of emotions flitting over their faces as they listen to it. The song is perfect of the film, and the way it was used was even more perfect. I really just can't say enough about the music. (Or the acting, or the mise en scène, or the writing, etc. etc. etc.)

I loved the whole thing. Kathy's final words are a perfect, haunting conclusion: "All of us complete. Maybe none of us really understand what we've lived through. Or feel we've had enough time." I can't wait to watch this again or to read the book. Definitely planning to do both. *edit: It's tomorrow, and I just watched it again before I had to return it to the library. It was just as good the second time, and I really just want to watch it again now. This film is one that will be stuck with me for ages, I think. I've used these words several times before, but I'll say it again: very haunting, very powerful, very beautiful, very heartbreaking.*

Rating: 5.0

Sunday, March 13, 2011

127 Hours (2010, U.S.)

This was a strangely engaging film, based on a true story that I actually remember from the news at the time. Basically, Aron Ralston goes out hiking alone in the Utah canyons, has his arm pinned under a boulder, and is trapped for five days before he amputates his own arm with a pocketknife. Grim stuff.

The film was very well done. The opening credits were an interesting montage of crowded city scenes and nature, showing a stark contrast. Once the story gets going, it starts out with enough scenes to show Aron's character, a laid-back, easy-going, friendly hiker who is more into being in nature than communicating with humans. Once he gets on his bike out in the canyons, his exuberance is almost contagious. It would make even the most sedentary person want to get out there and do something in nature.

Once he's trapped, I'm a little torn on my feelings. Probably because I have a love/hate relationship with James Franco. During some parts he gives a powerful, moving performance, but at other times it's like he's a stoner who thinks he's James Dean. Way too much. Still, most of the performance is talent rather than melodramatic overacting. This part also has some very interesting and well-used special effects that emphasize his condition. One of the best was from the inside of his water bottle as he sucked the last few milliliters out. It's hard to describe, but it was fantastically done. Then they show a montage as he dreams of going to a party with lots of beer, watching a soda commercial, etc. Basically, it has the effect of making the viewer feel his thirst. Very neat.

Other than these interesting effects and montages, the music was the most phenomenal part. I guess I'm not surprised, coming from the composer of the stellar Slumdog Millionaire score. I don't know how else to describe it except to say that it sounded like America when he looked out over the canyons. And the painful, screeching music used when he cut through his tendons while freeing his arm made me grit my teeth in pain, like it was my arm being severed. Wow.

So overall, quite a well-done film. I don't know if I would call it an inspiring survival story, because that's not what it felt like. It was more like an historical recreation—this is how it was. Even if the former was its intent and it didn't accomplish its aim, it was still a very engaging, thoughtful movie.

Rating: 3.5

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Lovely Bones (2009, U.S.)

The novel that this movie is based on is a beautiful examination of death and life grief as seen in the eyes of a young girl who is raped and murdered by her neighbor. It is one of the most beautifully written books I've ever read, and some of the best parts of the film were the passages lifted directly from the novel.

It felt like they tried to cram a bit too much suspense into a story that was supposed to be more thoughtful. On the other hand, Saoirse Ronan is a great young actress (see Atonement for further proof) and played the dead girl with a very nuanced performance.

Peter Jackson's touch was obvious in Susie's CGI heaven. It was beautiful, with a forest in summer blending into mountains in winter, all with a slowly disintegrating gazebo in the center. (The gazebo is a duplicate of one in the mall where she was supposed to meet a boy on her first ever date.) From here, Susie watches her family and friends grieve and her murderer reliving his crime.

It could have been done better, but it was still quite good.

Rating: 3.5

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Remember Me (2010, U.S.)

I was absolutely stunned to discover that most professional critics ripped this film apart. It was absolutely astounding.

Essentially, two young people who have suffered terrible losses find each other and fall in love. Ally saw her mother murdered when she was 10 years old, and Tyler (whose 22nd birthday is approaching) had an older brother who committed suicide on his 22nd birthday. Ally's father has become overly protective while Tyler's parents divorced and his father especially emotionally distanced himself from his surviving children. Tyler is close to his young sister, a shy brainy girl whose classmates torture her.

The characters were so incredibly real. I've always said that Robert Pattinson is a seriously underrated actor (inevitable, due to his roles as Cedric Diggory and especially Edward Cullen). (See The Haunted Airman for further evidence.) He was Tyler in this film—frustrated, lost, alone, a good brother, a bit of a mess, imperfect but still a basically good person. Emilie de Ravin wasn't overwhelming by any means when contrasted with Pattinson, but she is still a fairly strong actress and convincingly portrayed a fragile girl trying to find herself and redefine her identity without hurting her father too much. The rest of the cast was also great, though what else would you expect from the likes of Pierce Brosnan and Lena Olin? The real stunner was the young actress who played Tyler's younger sister. Her performance just defies description; you have to see it to believe it.

Ally had a thing about eating her dessert before her meal, because anything could happen and she might not make it to the main course. The filmmakers seemed to make such a big deal of it that I kept running over it in my mind and found the heart of the story. This is a film about loss and living life as if each day will be your last. About learning from grief and embracing each day and appreciating each person that comes into your life. It's hard to say more without giving away the ending, but a lot of critics said that this film was just a series of tragic things happening to beautiful people. That sounds like the kind of opinion I would be prone to have, and yet I didn't. Even with an ending that was incredibly cliche and, in retrospect, totally obvious, I still thought it worked well.

Aside from fantastic acting, the subtle score, gritty New York scenery, touches of humor, and good writing really made this a stunning film. So take that, Roger Ebert.

Rating: 5.0

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

How To Be (2008, UK)

I gather that this film was supposed to be pretty funny. And although I'm a bit of an Anglophile, it may have just been too British for me, because most of my laughing was in an "Are they serious?" type way.

Art is having an existential crisis, post break-up. He realizes that his family has never shown him much love and he doesn't know what he wants to do with his life. So he hires a Canadian self-help guru to come to London and help him out, naturally.

Pattinson was pretty amazing as Art. He's sensitive and unsure of himself and awkward and an all-out misfit. (Then again, something tells me that this is the really Robert Pattinson, behind the heartthrob mask.)

Of course the ultimate message here was to be who you are and do what makes you happy. It was touching, and sometimes even funny. Just not my favorite movie of all time.

Rating: 3.0

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

The Cake Eaters (2007, U.S.)

After Adventureland, I decided I needed to check out some more Kristen Stewart films to verify whether she was as good of an actress as I thought. Well, if this film is anything to go by, she is going to be the actress of her generation.

The Cake Eaters is a family drama about the intersecting lives of two families. The measured revelation of secrets and lies and hopes and desires is expertly done. The pace may be a bit slow, but it is definitely compelling.

Although the story is an ensemble drama about various members of the two families, Stewart stole the show as a terminally ill fifteen-year-old girl with Friedreich's ataxia, a disease that ravishes her nervous system, slurring her speech and making her movements jerky. Watching her performance, you would think that she was truly affilicted with this disease in reality if you didn't know better. Her performance is not a mockery of the condition—it is incredibly sympathetic. Her quest to live a full life in the very short time she has left is beautiful beyond words.

It's hard to describe how powerful this film is. Even if you're not from a poor, rural family, it would be hard to watch this without feeling it touch something in your heart.

Rating: 4.0

Sunday, December 28, 2008

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008, U.S.)

This film was truly stunning. It was creative and original. The cinematography was beautiful. The acting was fantastic. The makeup is a shoo-in for an Oscar for sure. The music could have been stronger, considering it was composed by Alexandre Desplat (one of my favorites), but it was really wonderful too.

I cannot say enough about Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt—they are truly phenomenal actors. Both play their characters from their mid-teens to very old age (although in Pitt's case, his external and internal ages are the exact opposite), and they do so in the most convincing manner, even down to aging their voices.

The plot of this film was multi-layered. On the one hand, you have a man who is discovering himself and life in a much different way than everyone else does. He is lonely and feels like an outcast because of his special circumstances. He is wise as a "young man" because he's learned so much from the perspective of an elderly man. On the other hand, you have a great love story about star-crossed lovers who have terrible timing but who are fated to be together. And if you had a third hand, on that hand would be the meaning of family and its discovery in unlikely places. Life lessons and romance all mixed together with a mostly serious—though sometimes playful—tone.

If I had to recommend one movie from 2008, this would probably be it. I look forward to seeing how many Oscars this one can grab!

Rating: 5.0

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Wristcutters: A Love Story (2006, U.S.)

What an incredibly unique film. I didn't have any expectations going into this one; in fact, I only had a vague idea what it was about. But it was something special.

It's about a guy who commits suicide (presumably because his girlfriend leaves him). However, the afterlife for suicide victims is almost exactly like this life—only it's more drab, more depressing, filled with other suicides, and nobody is allowed to smile. So this guy finds out the girl he killed himself over committed suicide too, and he begins a journey to find her. Of course what he finds instead is himself, some friends, and, ironically, a little bit of meaning in life.

This was perhaps one of the most bizarre fantasies I've ever seen, from "miracles" to a black hole under the seat of a beat up car to accidental residents of a strange purgatory. The acting was great. The story was a fresh take on an old theme, the setting was fittingly drab, and the ending was both disheartening and uplifting all at once.

Brilliant.

Rating: 4.0

Friday, September 5, 2008

Y tu mamá también (2001, Mexico)

I pretty much had the same reaction to Y tu mamá también as I did to The Human Stain. It was really quite wonderfully done, and yet I wished there was something more. And again, I couldn't quite put my finger on what that "more" would be.

Let me start by saying that I think Alfonso Cuarón is great. After all, he did direct my favorite of the first five Harry Potter films (Prisoner of Azkaban) as well as the absolutely brilliantly done Children of Men. Clearly, he has some flexible skills.

This film took a road trip sex-fest and turned it into an examination of life, love, and friendship. It's about growing up. It's about living the life you want to live before it's too late. It's about the stuff of friendships, especially those forged from opposite sides of the tracks. And in the background is the beauty of Mexico and traditional life and the changing nature of the country. Yet for all that, it's still funny in addition to being touching and dramatic.

Superb acting. Superb writing. Superb cinematography. I think that only two things are keeping me from giving this one a higher rating. First, the guys were just a little too "teenage" for me. Which was the point, I guess, and it wouldn't have worked any other way, but that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the typical behavior of typical boys. Secondly, the ending left me reeling with questions. Mainly, "Why did their friendship turn out the way it did?" Definitely a thought-provoker, from the instant the credits start rolling.

Rating: 3.5

Thursday, July 17, 2008

The Man on the Train / L'Homme du train (2002, France)

What an interesting film. It was quite slow and required a lot of thinking (at least if one was to appreciate it fully), and I'm afraid I was a bit too exhausted to be watching it when I did. However, I did enjoy it. It was about a bank robber and a retired French teacher who met randomly and wished they could have the other's life. It was quite subtle and required the viewer to read much further into little conversations and actions. Several days after viewing it, I am left with only a vague feeling of the whole, which is probably why I have so little to say about it. I will say that the ending was a total surprise, and quite incongruent to the rest of the film. But it was decidedly the best part. Interesting.

Rating: 3.5

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Meet Joe Black (1998, U.S.)

Clearly this is not the first time I've seen this movie, but I just watched it again, and I have to gush about it, on the record. I love this film. So much that it gets the highest rating. So much that I call it a "film" and not a "movie." So much that listening to the score makes my heart want to burst into a million pieces. It is a masterpiece. It's definitely one of two films that I am certain would be in my top five... If I could ever settle them all in. (The other, of course, is Amélie.)

The story is beautiful. It's about life and death, love and purpose. The score by Thomas Newman remains my favorite film score of all time. (He's composed tons of great ones... Look him up on imdb, and I'll guarantee you've seen at least one of the films he has composed for—I myself have seen about a dozen.) It is incredibly powerful in a very soft sort of way. If that makes any sense. Maybe it would be clearer to say it just reaches in, grabs you by the heart, and won't let go.

Anthony Hopkins is a great actor. He deserves that "Sir" in front of his name. And as for Brad Pitt, I would say this is one of the best, if not the best, performance of his career. He essentially plays two different characters, and he plays them so differently that you can tell they're different before he even speaks or moves his body much—a movement of the eyes is enough to do it. Now that is acting. His portrayal of "Young Man in Coffee Shop" is exactly the kind of guy a girl would want to fall in love with. His portrayal of Joe Black touches the exact right notes of that sublime power mixed with uncertainty and hesitance as he first experiences the human condition. His performance is nothing short of moving. And by the end, I can't help but loving life, feeling hopeful, and feeling emotional every time I see fireworks.

And yet Pitt is supposedly embarrassed by this film, or so he was quoted as saying in October 2007. You can find this on imdb: "Brad Pitt was so embarrassed by his performance in movies Cutting Class, Meet Joe Black, and Seven Years In Tibet, he's apologized to film critics. He admits some of his roles in the late 1980s and 1990s were not his strongest - and agrees with movie critics who claim his earlier work is not his best. But Pitt insists the experience has made him a much better actor. He says, 'I believe I'm quite capable and we, as people, can learn to do anything, and that's proof of it! And my education is on film, on record! Now I can take on anything that comes my way and find truth in it an do a pretty good job.'"

I find this unbelievable. I've never seen Cutting Class, but I'll admit it doesn't look so good. But Meet Joe Black and Seven Years in Tibet are both magnificent films. How can you go back and say that Seven Years in Tibet, a film that moved people (and offended the Chinese so much that it got Pitt banned from China), is an embarrassment? Obviously it was a big deal. And maybe Meet Joe Black was a huge financial flop in 1998, but people love it now. (And hey—my mom paid the $4.50 for me to see it in 1998!) So who cares if it made money? It's beautiful. Beautiful. And the acting was not bad. In fact, I can't think of one thing I've ever seen Pitt in, whether the movie was good or bad, in which his acting was bad. He's just brilliant, and that's all there is to it.

And this movie is brilliant as well. If you haven't seen it, you MUST. "Sooner or later, everyone does," as the tagline said....

Rating: 5.0