The Favourite

December 9, 2018 at 10:50 am | Posted in 2018 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊ ◊

I am struggling to figure out how to talk about this film, which I didn’t love, but didn’t hate either. The critics, on the other hand, clearly love this film; it has a 94% on Rotten Tomatoes, and (even more remarkable) a 91% on Metacritic. It is one of the darlings of the Oscar race, which is why I chose to see it. So, why didn’t it land for me? The only other film I have seen by director Yorgos Lanthimos would be “The Lobster,” which critics also loved and I absolutely hated. So, it may be that I just don’t get Lanthimos’s style as a director. But, I do like this film a good deal more than “The Lobster.” It just wasn’t as enjoyable as I had thought it would be. I think, for me, it was a comedy that just wasn’t that funny. It certainly was funny and I did laugh in parts, but the humor was odd and a bit all over the place. Much of the humor was of the snarky-crude insult variety. This film is a sort of modern, British “Dangerous Liaisons.” Taking place around the turn of the 18th Century, it covers Queen Anne’s relationship with two women, as they jostle for her attention at court. The film focuses on the various ways they connive to manipulate the Queen against each other. All the characters of the film are historical figures, and the outcome also matches history. The story takes some salacious gossip, used to discredit one of the women, and takes it as fact, adding another bawdy layer to the story. And this is a film with plenty of bawdy humor, crassness, and profanity. Perhaps, that is what I disliked a bit; the humor was not nearly so clever and biting as in Dangerous Liaisons. It also, rather strangely, turned absurdist on occasion. There were scenes that appeared to be making fun of the whole conceit of the film, that of applying modern sensibilities to a period piece. Sometimes it worked, but often the humor left me flat. It’s a shame, because there are real elements to enjoy. All of the performances were fantastic, but I was particularly taken by Olivia Coleman as the Queen. Up until now, I have known her mostly for her TV work in shows like “Broadchurch” and “The Crown.” She is the focus of this film and her performance is fantastic. So much emotion plays across her face as she plays the tantruming, childish, and deeply unhappy Anne. I could happily watch that performance again and again. I can see why she has been nominated for a Golden Globe and it would be nice to see her get into the much tighter Best Actress category at the Oscars, along side Glenn Close and Lady Gaga. I think the film is right on the edge of funny enough and clever enough and entertaining enough to recommend, but it is Colman’s performance that tips it over that edge.

My Cousin Rachel

June 11, 2017 at 5:04 pm | Posted in 2017 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

◊ ◊

This has been quite the weekend for ambiguous thrillers. One of which worked and, this one, not so much. That is not to say that this was a bad movie. In fact, some elements worked well. It just wasn’t a very inspiring one, either. The rather famous novel of the same name by British author Daphne au Maurier has been the bases for multiple adaptations before, including one staring Richard Burton and Olivia de Havilland. Though written in 1951, it is set on an estate in mid-19th century Cornwall. Ambrose as has just died in Italy and his young cousin, Philip (Sam Claflin), suspects his wife, Rachel (Rachel Weisz), of having murdered him. Rachel comes to visit Philip on the estate and the audience spends the rest of the movie wondering if Rachel is a cunning killer or a kindhearted and misunderstood widow. Director and screenwriter, Roger Michell, does a good job of teasing both possibilities. Weisz knows how to play her role well, allowing the faintest smile or glance to suggest that maybe… just maybe… she isn’t what she appears. But, then, maybe she is (because, did I imagine that smile?). It’s a clever performance. Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn’t live up to it. Despite the truly stunning scenery, this is, overall, a largely dull affair. There are brief moments of tension, surrounded by long periods of tedium. The story builds toward another, nicely uncertain ending but this film just was not nearly as impactful as “It Comes at Night,” which I reviewed this morning. It lacks any of the vitality that made that film so watchable. Of the two, go see that one. Wait until this is on t.v., you have binged all your shows, and there is nothing new on. Then watch it; it will be much better than sitting through another “Pirates of the Caribbean” for the umpteenth time.

The Lobster

May 30, 2016 at 6:26 pm | Posted in 2016 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

◊

I feel that I need to start with a caveat: I did not like this movie but everyone else did. It has a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes and it won the Jury Prize at Cannes last year. The person I saw it with loved it. Some of my favorite film critics loved it. Everyone loved it, it seems, except me. Now, granted, this is not your average film going experience. Set in some bizarre parallel universe, it takes place in a society where being single is outlawed and the punishment is to get turned into the animal of your choice. Colin Farrell’s character has been sent to “the hotel” to find a new mate after his wife left him. If he fails to within 45 days, he will be turned into a lobster. This sounds like it might be funny and maybe it would be, if it weren’t all so damned bleak. Various hotel guests, including John C. Reilly (“Wreck-it-Ralph,” “Step Brothers”) and Ben Whishaw (“The Danish Girl,” the recent “Bond” films), shuffle around giving such understated performances that they all appear heavily sedated and hopeless. When the story shifts unexpectedly, we are introduced to characters played by Léa Seydoux (“Blue is the Warmest Color,” “Spectre”) and Rachel Weisz (the “Mummy” movies, “Oz the Great and Powerful”). Given the circumstances in which we meet them, we might have expected more emoting. That would be a mistake. Director Yorgos Lanthimos clearly wanted quiet, introspective, minimalist performances. Unfortunately, they left me feeling completely uninvested in any of the characters which, given the grim arc of the storyline, may have been a good thing. Lanthimos is a critical darling, who is well respected for his complex and difficult movies, like “Dogtooth” and “Alps.” He uses fantastical imagery to explore deeper issues but, here, the metaphor felt lost for me. He is clearly saying something about dating in our modern age and the obsession we have with finding mates through the matching of random characteristics (he’s talking to you, OKCupid). And, on another level, he seems to also be making commentary about fascist governments, resistance groups, sex laws and hypocrisy. It’s all heady stuff but, for me, it all fell flat because I could never get beyond the silliness on screen. It was neither funny enough to be parody, nor grounded enough to be commentary. Add to that the empty, shuffling performances and nothing resonated with me at all. I was bored for two very long, checking-the-clock, hours. It’s a shame because I feel like I missed out on something that others enjoyed. Clearly, they were relating to the film on a level that I could not. Perhaps, that makes my review suspect. So, in fairness, here is a link to A.O. Scott’s review from the NYTimes. I’ll let you decide who’s opinion feels like the better fit for you.

Oz The Great and Powerful

March 18, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Posted in 2013 | Leave a comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

½

Critics have skewered this film in relation to “The Wizard of Oz” but I must admit to not being a particular fan of that film either.  As most folks know, musicals are not well-beloved by me and I am also not much of a fan of Hollywood dramas of the Thirties; I find them to be saccharin and manipulative  (see “Gone With The Wind” or “Mr Smith Goes to Washington,” as opposed to the brilliant German film of the era, “M”).  So, how to judge this film?  Well, it is not cloying or saccharin.  However, it is a modern Hollywood film, which is to say it plays by it’s own cynical formula; it is all surfaces and no depth.  The audience is treated to a constant barrage of fantastical images in colors so bright is puts Technicolor to shame.  3D (which is, of course, the new Technicolor) is as big a gimmick as color was in the first Oz film.  All sorts of things leap and pop, solely for the purpose of doing so.  In the place of actual character depth and emotions, we are given cuteness, in the form of a China doll and a talking monkey.  Yes, they are cute in the way that only small children and animals can be.  But, as with the rest of the film, there is nothing below that cuteness and, in the end, it only serves to highlight the emotional falseness of the film as a whole.  No real acting is required and none given.  James Franco is perhaps one of the most over-worked (actor, writer, director, poet, teacher) and over-rated (“Spider-Man?” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes?”  Did he really have to do that much acting in “127 Hours?”) actors working today and he is in fine form here, so overplaying the grinning charlatan as to  add new meaning to “laughing at him.”   Even in green make-up, prosthetics and maniacal cackling, Mila Kunis’s voice is so hers that it was impossible not to hear Jacky from “That 70s Show.”  Perhaps, worst of all, I cannot even recommend the special effects of a movie built on them.  We have seen everything here before and, in some cases, done much better.  This isn’t the Thirties, so this film doesn’t end with any moral lessons about courage and love, thank god.  Instead, it ends as all of these movies do, with a jaundiced eye open toward sequels and tie-ins.  Which is worse?  I honestly don’t know.

Blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.