Showing posts with label thomas newman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label thomas newman. Show all posts

Sunday, August 21, 2011

The Help (2011, U.S.)

So, the big movie of the year. I have to say to preface this review that I'm starting to hate it already. Not because it was a bad book, not because it was a bad movie, but because suddenly a bunch of people who never read have decided they're going to start reading and I have to buy 10,000 copies of the one book to keep them all happy, in lieu of buying a nice variety of things that regular readers can enjoy. I would also like to add that I read it before anyone knew it was going to be a movie. So there. Off the soapbox and onto an objective as possible review...

I liked it, and had it been a stand-alone movie and not based on a book, I would have been really impressed with it. However, I wasn't that impressed. Because despite my grouching, the book truly was phenomenal, even ground-breaking. The characters were more alive than almost any book I've ever read. Their lives were complicated, their relationships were complex, and their personalities were too. In the movie they were much, much flatter. Not flat exactly, but not well-developed either. I don't think that's any fault of the actors, however. Every female character—Minny, Aibileen, Skeeter, Hilly, Celia, the mothers, and even little Mae Mobly—was portrayed with the utmost skill and believability. (The men less so, but then male characters are very peripheral to the story anyway.) Though within the solid, skilled ensemble cast, Janney and especially Spacek nearly stole the show. I think the ultimate source of such a dulled down version was the screenwriting. I don't think the actors were given enough to work with. The struggle wasn't written like a struggle (especially because there were fewer maids and fewer stories told). They watered down things like Minny's abusive husband and Aibileen's dead son. The core plot was there, but the heart and soul and feeling of the story seemed absent.

Besides the great acting, there were many other good elements as well. The period scenes and costumes, for example, were awesome. The score was standard Thomas Newman. The story was fundamentally the same. But all this doesn't fix a weak script that lacks the punch of the original. (I especially missed Minny's line that if she were Mammy she'd tell Scarlett to stick those curtains "up her little white pooper," and other classics like that.)

Overall, a good movie. But if you really want to be moved, inspired, and entertained, read the book.

Rating: 3.5

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Little Children (2006, U.S.)

Kate Winslet is one of the greatest actresses of her generation, if not all time. And Patrick Wilson is great when the psychologically disturbing and dramatic stuff (see Hard Candy). So a film with such a small cast that revolves around the two of them is sure to be a winner.

In an upper-middle class suburb, the lives of a woman with a porn-addicted husband, a man with a disinterested wife, a disgraced ex-cop, and a convicted sex offender dance around each other. It's hard to tell how they'll align (despite the common neighborhood), but eventually all runs together.

I guess this is supposed to be a film about people who can't control their impulses, but to me it seemed more like a film about people who are trapped in unhappy lives and deal with them in inappropriate ways.

It was sad watching these people pathetically run their lives into the ground. And while it was a powerful film, I think it was just too bleak for me. Still, definitely worth watching.

Rating: 3.5

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Brothers (2009, U.S.)

This is the kind of modern war film that there should be more of. I think that they really failed in marketing this one, however. While they made it seem like a movie about two brothers in love with the same woman, that was nowhere near the truth.

Instead, it was about the psychological damage done to a good soldier who was taken prisoner by the Taliban and forced to do unspeakable things, things that he couldn't tell anyone about—not his wife, not his superiors, and not his brother. Tobey Maguire did an absolutely brilliant job of portraying a man whose control is unraveling. It was an interesting contrast to his brother, an ex-con who spends his time trying to hold his brother's family together, for little thanks and a mountain of accusations. Jake Gyllenhaal and Natalie Portman are two of the most talented actors I can think of, and they were wonderful too.

And of course, beautiful score by Thomas Newman. That man has a gift.

Rating: 3.5

Sunday, February 8, 2009

Revolutionary Road (2008, U.S.)

I have been dying to see this film, which took way too long to come into wide release (considering the number of times I've seen the preview at other movies). My friend Stefanie and I have tried to see it twice already, but complications arose both times. Needless to say, when we saw it today the anticipation was intense. It was a lot different than I imagined it would be; not disappointing, exactly, just different.

I loved that it was a character-driven film, and that very little about those two characters was explicitly defined. Instead, they relied on their actions (and reactions) to allow the viewer to interpret their characters. Sometimes one was the protagonist and the other the antagonist, and it would change again in an instant. I guess I don't need to say that Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio were both phenomenal. They both have such expressive faces (and especially expressive eyes), that I feel like I can read their thoughts like words written across the face.

The plot was intense. a married couple with two children suddenly realizes that the life they're living isn't the life they wanted, and they take out all of their anger on each other and themselves. They try to start a new life, making plans to move to Paris, where the husband thinks people are "more alive." Things start to look better until their plan starts unraveling, and they both go a little bit crazy. One of the taglines, which I love, is "How do you break free without breaking apart?" Even though this film takes place in the '50s, you can easily see it taking place today. There is some definite social commentary about how we live the lives society tells us we should instead of the lives we want. It's beautiful. Interestingly, the character who seems to really see the world as it is and who has the best grip on reality is the neighbor's insane son.

And as we watch Winslet and DiCaprio brilliantly tear each other apart and put each other back together, Thomas Newman's haunting (and somewhat repetitive—but in a good way) score echos them in the background. The score is simply executed, like the rest of the film.

This film is a good one, and I would recommend it. Just be prepared to feel some gut-wrenching despair and to reevaluate your life.

Rating: 4.0

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