Marie Antoinette

Sofia Coppola, France / USA / Japan, 2006
2.5 out of 4 stars

It’s certainly very pretty, but it’s hard to know what to think about the film besides that. I do have to admit that I was a little tired going into it, but it did seem rather long despite only being two hours. It also tends to be a film with long stretches of inactivity and then a large number of key events telescoped, by shorthand, into a few brief scene; while I don’t doubt that this was deliberate, it makes for a strange viewing experience. It’s also hard not to shake the feeling that Kirsten Dunst just isn’t up for it, even when “it” is just a party girl from 300 years ago (in fact, I’m not sure that being shallow helps one play a shallow character, and the point of the Marie character here does seem to be that she didn’t start out shallow). After a while, it seems like too much of an uphill battle to continually try to take these “it-girls,” selected for some level of stardom solely based on looks, and thrust them into a leading role in an arty pic, hoping that they will rise to the occasion. Why don’t we just take a cue from the Brits and actually garner actresses for the A-list that can act really damn well?? As it is, there are hardly any such persons to turn to when a director like Sofia Coppola needs to get a marketable star for a piece like this. I’m not convinced that a “weightier” actress would have saved this, but it would have at least helped.

Source: Sony 35mm print
29 October, 9:35 PM

United 93

Paul Greengrass, UK / France / USA, 2006
4 out 4 stars

When filmmakers promise me “realism” and “accuracy,” I usually have low expectations, as the notion of “reality” is simultaneously over-valued and endlessly travestied in modern culture. Jerky camera movements are supposed to reassure the audience that they’re not witnessing something that’s too “Hollywood,” as if we should trust something that deliberately seeks to provoke nausea while evoking little more than The Real World. Meanwhile, fidelity to minute details can often lead directly to an unwillingness or refusal to convey any real truth about the events at hand.

Miraculously, Paul Greengrass has avoided all of these pitfalls to create an astonishingly worthwhile piece about the America-changing trauma that was, and wasn’t. Of course, he avoids making the “let’s roll” guy into Rambo, something that would be terrifying to me but perhaps gratifying to many others, yet at the same time, his depiction of a largely helpless assortment of people (in the air and on the ground) who mostly react to whatever confronts them rather than decisively, out of some grander ideology.

We see all the times the dots should have been connected, and we even see the willingness of people in different offices to connect them, and yet we see how completely awry everything went. Most chilling of all, and still unfortunately relevant when one thinks about Katrina, is the reminder that TimeWarner (through CNN) is so much better equipped and aware of crucial goings-on then that government we pay so much for (and think how incompetent the news channels are!). What’s frightening about this film is that it is a quite real take on a national crisis that has been compared to Hollywood film catastrophes with unsettling frequency; by showing us a certainly mundane terror behind the whole thing, Greengrass actually takes some of the Hollywood out of it.

Source: Universal DVD
20 October, 10:07 PM

The Departed

Martin Scorsese, USA, 2006
3.5 out of 4 stars

I’m not even sure about the extent to which people are aware that Scorsese’s latest is a remake of a 2002 Hong Kong thriller Infernal Affairs, a film I only saw last year. My awareness of the original certainly made for a different viewing experience than that of my peers, as I couldn’t help but spend much of the screen time marveling over how much of the story had made it into the new film.

There are certainly, however, differences worth talking about, which therefore make the movie worth watching. The performances are all stellar, and Jack Nicholson’s in particular outshines his predecessor, Eric Tsang. The overall feel is certainly grittier; I hesitate to use the word “realistic,” but the original was a lot slicker and shinier while this one is almost hyper realistic in its high levels of obscene language and blood-spattering (making allowances for the fact that a gunshot will always be more impressive on the big screen, at least until I can afford surround sound at home!). Overall, this film is a bit more organic, and it’s interesting to see the two different approaches.

Finally, Scorsese and his screenwriter, William Monahan, develop the background at the beginning more thoroughly, and add a coda to the film’s ending that is perhaps the only real departure from the plot of the original. Both are quite dark conclusions in different ways, which in itself is interesting. I suppose I would recommend that you watch the original first, if only because I am a bit worried that you might think less of the original if you saw it after the remake! I’d have to watch Infernal Affairs again, but my feeling right now is that Scorsese put a bit more meat on its bones in his version.

Source: Warner 35mm print
20 October, 10:15 PM

Closer

Mike Nichols, USA, 2004
3.5 out of 4 stars

Although I’m sure I’ve read it somewhere, I don’t think I needed to be told that this was a film adaptation of a play. The film only contains four characters, and it is composed of a finite number of lengthy, talky scenes. Just because it’s obvious, however, doesn’t mean that this is a bad adaptation; in fact, it’s quite the opposite, as I felt that Mike Nichols found a very good balance of cinematic and theatrical sensibilities in this piece.

The stagey origins of this film comes out is through the deliberately artificial quality of some or much of the dialogue. The characters often speak to each other in various series of incisive, if improbable, questions and answers. Julia Roberts is the weakest link, to a point, but overall the actors manage to make this style work, and they therefore make the film possible. As for the plot, I’m not sure if I took it as seriously as I was supposed to; for instance, was I really supposed to take the online sex chat as comedy? I think the piece does succeed in being emotionally involving and engaging, nonetheless, and I suspect, speaking as a lover of the theater, that this play probably works better on screen, with the breathing room it gets through the sets, the outdoors, and Nichols’ camera angles. On a stage, it seems like it could become stultifying.

Source: Sony DVD
19 October, 10:22 PM

Secrets & Lies

Mike Leigh, UK / France, 1996
Two and a half stars

I felt really absorbed by this film for most of its running time. It seemed to be a really chilling display of emotional squalor, like the director was really dragging me through the mud of human misery, and all this despite the fact that most of the characters are fairly mediocre in their tragic-ness. While I realize that that is the point, ultimately this film can only disappoint by not really going for the jugular. It’s really almost like the director said, “oh, wouldn’t it be interesting and challenging if this happened” and then went ahead and put it on screen without trying that hard to make it interesting. Furthermore, there is a kind of optimism that creeps in towards the end that complete undermines the entire tone of the film up until that point, making one wonder what good the film is if not as some kind of coherent philosophical viewpoint. I think the performances are good – Brenda Blethyn is hard to listen to, but then, that helps us understand why some of her relatives are so hard on her – but they are not really used towards some greater purpose. The whole affair is largely underwhelming.

Source: Fox DVD
16 October, 10:22 PM

Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

Adam McKay, USA, 2006
4 out of 4 stars

I’m not a fan of what I have been known to call, in full elitist mode, “dumb comedy,” so I was immensely surprised at how much I enjoyed this film. I know he’s certainly made some dreck, but it may be that I simply haven’t given Will Ferrell enough of a chance before now; this is actually the first Ferrell vehicle I’ve ever seen!

In truth, this movie isn’t dumb at all. Ferrell and McKay present us with a wealth of incisive observations about modern bourgeois American culture and its consumerist, religious, and hyper-masculinist affectations by depicting the most unembarrassed manifestations of these phenomena, the so-called “red staters,” but by showing the real heart and humanity of these characters, and by refraining from letting their “blue” counterparts off the hook, they manage to do it without any of the costal elitism that I myself find hard to avoid at times.

It would be disingenuous for me to say, “ideological critiques aside, the movie is extremely funny.” It is, in fact, the funniest movie of 2006 that I’ve seen, but the humor is definitely tied up in that business. I appreciate that Ferrell surrounds himself with a very strong cast, especially the hillarious Sacha Baron Cohen as his gay French rival. Cohen seems to be setting himself up as the reincarnation of Peter Sellers (in a good way), and his portrayal surprised me especially for not being particularly hateful (allowing for the possibility that people who are actually gay and/or French might disagree). I don’t know if it’s reasonable to say that the characters are not caricatures, but the film does avoid the cheap trick of trying to elicit laughs from humorless, tired stereotypes alone, and most of the characters have life to them; they aren’t merely foils for Farrell’s wackiness.

As a side note, I have discovered a bargain theater in Moreno Valley at which evening screenings are merely $4! My friend and I were alone in the audience, in front of a very large screen. We suspect they might not even have started the film if no one showed up. The main downside was that the film seemed to be out of focus the entire time, which was hard on my eyes (it’s also possible that the print is just worn out, I suppose).

Source: Sony 35mm print
13 October, 9:35 PM

Fearless

(Huo Yuanjia)
Ronny Yu, China / Hong Kong / Japan, 2006
2 out of 4 stars

This film has some interesting things to say about provincialism and nationalism, seeing as how it depicts its hero as struggling to “progress” from the former to the latter.” The message is quite clear and not at all muddled, but the only problem is a lack of balance in the depiction of his progression. There’s a lot of time spent on his bad old days in Tianjin (which at least contains many entertaining fight scenes), but when he starts having a change of heart, it leads to this fairly random change in ideology that takes place almost concurrently with his growing moral conscience, but there’s no real coherent connection made there. Instead, we see him profoundly inspired and influenced by that most tired of outmoded film clichés, the newsboy yelling out the plot points, even crucial decisions by the protagonist.

Some complained that Hero was a propaganda piece for Chinese nationalism (at the exepense of, say, Tibet, Xinjian or even Taiwan), but if it was, at least it was a good one. This film wants to convey some image of virtuos nationalism, but it seems like they couldn’t find a way to make it worth watching, to actually make the propaganda work, so the director just starts barreling through seemingly important events in his hero’s life after all the pointless-but-fun fights are over. At least Jet Li finally gets the chance to strike a literal blow against European imperialism by fighting white folks with Western fighting styles, although once again, the final fight is against a Japanese martial artist (the film hedges in an interesting matter regarding the Japanese, while it’s fairly non-committal about the Europeans). His acting sucks in this one though, and you may think that’s stating the obvious, but he showed much more pathos in the recent Unleashed, and his rarely-seen carefree persona was much more appealing in the earlier Swordsman II, so I thought it was worth noting.

Source: Universal 35mm print
8 October, 7:05 PM

After Life

(Wandafuru raifu)
Kore-eda Hirokazu, Japan, 1998
3 out of 4 stars

What starts out as a seemingly obscure philosophical exercise turns out to have an actual plot to it. This isn’t that surprising when you consider that a film about people in an afterlife waystation, compelled to choose one memory to live with for eternity, contains some ideas that could easily be forged into a Hollywood remake (violating the sprit or the original, naturally). The insertion of some human interest, mostly in the final third of the film, adds some poignancy to the proceedings, which I appreciated. I couldn’t help but wish that Kore-eda could have had just a slightly higher budget, though… basically, the actors have to keep saying they’re halfway to the afterlife until the audience decides to believe them, as there’s not much, visually, to back them up. There are also some weird moments, like when the heroine ventures out into the city, that had me wondering what we were supposed to be seeing, actually. This isn’t to suggest that there is nothing here visually, as the scenes where they film the chosen memories are creatively-depicted. Overall, this is a sedate film that does ask the viewer to do a certain amount of work, for good or ill. It’s worth a viewing, but it doesn’t entirely draw you in or carry you along.

Source: New Yorker DVD
4 October, 11:46 PM