THE DUCHESS [2008]
by Saul Dibb
A fascinating piece of English history and a sharp parable, if not a tad too late, to the legacy left behind by Princess Diana. The story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, who was married off way too young and impressionable, is the exact kind of tale one would have expected from Jane Austen but one that is actually based on [some] facts that until now only historians revelled in. This is precisely the film made twenty years back when Merchant/Ivory ruled the period piece market. Except that THE DUCHESS is sourced from a somewhat new biography and is helmed by Saul Dibb, a relatively unknown [award winning for 2004’s BULLET BOY].
More importantly, this DUCHESS is lucky enough to have been made In the time of Keira Knightely, a woman of such delicate, exact features that she personalizes her timeless wardrobe and hairpieces so fittingly into her timeline yet still implies an impish modernity that is very necessary to embody the DUCHESS in question.
Ralph Feinnes plays against Knightely – looking more and more like F. Murray Abraham’s Salieri in AMADEUS [not a compliment but the desired outcome]. As the much older man that marries Georgiana, his Duke shows subtlety in his rage and some charisma to his menace in what is a mostly an antagonistic role. Charlotte Rampling, in a rare chance to show her face succumbed to age, adds substance as Georgiana’s mom, selling her out for security and prestige. Hayley Atwell as Bess Foster, the liberated woman who – out of defeat - comes between the twosome and forms a love/hate relationship with Georgiana and, more shockingly, becomes a partner in the marriage, does a commendable job of conveying varying aspects that has the audience loathing and admiring her at once. But the true surprise here is Dominic Cooper, completely miscast is MAMMA MIA, yet perfectly suitable for such a high octane costume drama. Cooper’s Charles Grey [later Prime Minister of England] is very appealing, kind and sensitive. He plays him with lots of empathy.
So what’s the downside to a film so proficiently made? Well, perhaps the film would have benefited from a little more tension. More drama. Perhaps not possible given the limitations of playing with history but it has been done before. Watching a lot happen on screen while nothing and no one really changes the course of the movie [except for the inevitably obvious], in fact, circumvents the strain that a story filled with such powder keg of intensity needs to have. By the end, in order to appease history, everyone on screen’s been dealt the blow and they’ve all come to except their compromises and somehow manage to get past it and live an almost-happiness ever after utopia. Perhaps it is how it actually happened but it is not ringing entirely true and I am certainly not convinced. Just look at how we still feed on Diana years after she’s passed away.
Notable mention: Rachel Portman’s superior score may be noted come Oscar season.
WHAT JUST HAPPENED
by Barry Levinson
WHAT JUST HAPPENED is a satire too serious for its own good, that it is no longer just cutting but a tad too close to the bone. It’s also a film that is borderline angry and has a lot of personal demons to vent. It understandably comes from a bitter source, prolific producer Art Linson, who adapted his own autobiography which, in turn, has been creatively put together courtesy of a once golden director Barry Levinson, who himself peaked in Hollywood with RAINMAN in 1988 and, arguably, made is best film, WAG THE DOG, a precious timely satire, in 1997. Some may even remember that his last great film, a little seen but solid comedy called BANDITS starred Bruce Willis, Cate Blanchett and Billy Bob Thornton. It was loose and funny and made little money.
That the two got together to put on this Hollywood dog and pony show should be of no surprise to those in the business. Many lessons learned later seem to have come in handy. Still, they are not the first nor will they be the last to paint such a sullen picture of Hollywood. Some films beforehand were even better, either more insightful or more precise [THE PLAYER comes to mind] Yet, WHAT JUST HAPPENED is a mockery, scathing enough if only for its use of star power as a weapon, in a bold attempt to discredit Hollywood’s elite.
Robert De Niro, in a somewhat controlled, most comfortable role in years, plays distressed producer Ben, juggling quite a handful, from a Sean Penn flick that needs a new studio approved ending to a Bruce Willis feature that demands its star to lose some weight and shave off a very large beard. Then there are two ex-wives, three kids, and an assortment of unreliable agents, a cold studio head and a temperamental director that Ben needs to appease. Day in and day out, that’s Ben’s task, his one mission, to survive in lala land.
Catherine Keener, as always powerful, has the misfortune of playing the harsh Studio Head, Lou, as a Sherry Lansing-type, notorious for her heartless uncompromising ways. Both Penn and especially Willis play themselves and eat it up for the camera, lovingly it seems, the former as an artist with way too much integrity while the latter as a difficult star prone to mood swings and an angry demeanour. Robin Wright Penn – older and looking better than ever, play the ex that Ben still pines for. John Turturro, as a spineless agent, and Stanley Tucci, as a deceptive writer, also figure in prominently in Ben’s day-to-day life.
Levinson’s results conclude not only a talent for working comfortably with his actors but also a mostly successful effort to include artistic elements into the film, visually and stylistically, in an attempt to convey Ben’s frenzied work days and crazy lifestyle stylistically. Again, this is not new for Levinson, who previously crafted THE NATURAL, AVALON and BUGSY; all beautifully shot films. Even then, for some reason, it seems as if Levinson was aiming for an independent feel, one that logically bucks the very studio system he is being critical of.
Perhaps it would have been more biting than bitter had Linson and Levinson kept some distance from their material - it seems hard to make a film about a subject that is too painful to handle - WHAT JUST HAPPENED could have been another WAG THE DOG in the bag. However, as it stands, it is not as probing as it would like to be – even as honest and raw as it is – but nonetheless it is intensely involving and, if just for the moment, lets us know that Hollywood is a bad place to be.
ROCKNROLLA
by Guy Ritchie
ROCKNROLLA is stellar! A fun & frenzied gangster flick filled with acerbic wit, stylized violence and, to Guy Ritchie fans out there, more familiar characters that populate this wild goose chase of a cons-versus-cons ride. While imperfect this latest Ritchie, true to his own reliable form, is yet another wildly fanciful mob flick not quite at the level of SNATCH but much better controlled than REVOLVER and thoroughly entertaining. In yet another glam world concocted by Ritchie more small time crooks and highfalutin mobsters interact and double cross each other in an effort to control prime real estate and millions of dollars, all in the name of power.
In some very clever bit of casting, likeable Mark Strong is Archie, our storyteller, an estimable, self-effacing and loyal right-hand man to Tom Wilkinson’s powerful crime lord Lenny Cole, a notoriously angry, greedy grandstander [once again proving that his Oscar nominations are rightfully adding up]. Following a deal gone completely and easily wrong, in which questionable loyalists become untrustworthy, a series of mishaps and a suspicious death later turns the quest for both deal and money into a bloody tale of vendetta that includes a silky smooth vaporous accountant played to perfection by Thandie Newton, a trio of hired guns [including Gerard Butler and, in a unique sympathetic gay role, Tom Hardy], an off-kilter punk rocker menacingly yet sensitively portrayed as doomed junkie by Toby Kebbell, a greasy Russian mobster trying to stake in new territory [Karel Roden], and some American music promoters inadvertently caught up in the dangerous mess [Jeremy Piven included].
As expected, ROCKNROLLA is controlled and contrived – and, despite the sporadic violence, visually pleasing to the eye – yes, from start to finish. It is smoothly placed together like a jigsaw puzzle, the 500-piece kind, with a few struggling pieces here and there that are just a tad more difficult to place. But the factor that it may not all add up somewhat adds to the joy. You may also realize half way through that while the characters have no idea what is about to hit them, the audience gets led in on the formula, with a wink, as back seat drivers, pacing through the mayhem. And Ritchie, as usual, never forgets to include the hoodwinking humour. The real pleasure of watching Ritchie’s work by now – so readily predictable in form – is in experiencing, first-hand, his characters’ devilishly diverse comeuppance. And of that, we get plenty of rewards.
I figure that if you are already prepared to watch a Ritchie flick, and ROCKNROLLA is most certainly a worthwhile entry, then you can never come out of the theatre disappointed. Even, as weak as REVOLVER was, it still had its merits. Here, ROCKNROLLA has a lot to offer, not the least of which is guaranteed fun. Go escape now and watch other people get what they deserve.
LEMON TREE Etz Limon [2008]
by Eran Riklis
Many Israeli directors – artists as socialists – have used the country’s political strife as a backdrop in order to convey their own, often critical, opinions. They use the opportunity as social commentary, from a particular stance, generally condemning their own government’s extreme measures towards peace initiatives. As such these creative but explosive directors tend to enjoy their international acclaim abroad – as their films become ideal festival fodder echoing worldwide sentiments and, in doing so, manage to infuriate a good amount of the Israeli public, specifically the cinemagoer that may realize that matters are simply not simple. And yet, funny enough, director Eran Riklis has decided, with the aid of co-scripter Suha Arraf [both collaborated previously on the acclaimed THE SYRIAN BRIDE] –, to form exactly that, a seemingly simple story. And, surprisingly, what truly works in this rhetorical film’s favour is that –from its first images – it is quite compelling in empathy with its main character’s personal anguish, allowing for any tolerance in its bias.
The engaging premise takes off when Salma, a 47 year-old Palestinian widow living in her family home, awfully close to territorial border, finds new neighbours moving in just across the fence. Her pride, joy and preoccupation is her very own lemon grove that just happens to be situated next to the newly erected villa of recently appointed Israeli Defence Minister Israel Navon [translating to Wise Israel] and his dour chic, compassionate wife, Mira. Well problems soon arise when the Secret Service dictates that the grove, causing a security risk to the Defence Minister’s safety, needs to be uprooted. No deep metaphors here. On the contrary, it’s all clearly plain and obvious.
Well, Salma does not abide by the restriction that forces her out of her own grove, she chooses to challenge the bulldozing Israelis. She hires herself a young, ambitious lawyer – effectively played by Ali Suliman [PARADISE NOW & BODY OF LIES] - and ends up taking the matter all the way to the Israeli Supreme Court. In the only actual hint of allegory, much like a lemon peel, the film offers a bitter observation that presents hope while never truly delivering an actually satisfying conclusion. There’s lots of angry compromise as well as uncompromising pride from start to end in Riklis’ take on how politics impact the personal lives of everyone affected by such governmental decisions.
Hiam Abbass [THE VISITOR] expertly portrays Salma as a proud woman, still very attractive at 47, retaining her dignity and, yet conceding much of her own happiness as a single woman in the name of loyalty to her people and faith. She is ultimately lonely but completely understanding of her role in society. This film signifies as much of Selma’s personal struggles as it is presses the sensitively political hot buttons it does in order to provoke. While Riklis does not even attempt to present an even-handed viewpoint, it is obvious that no film of this kind can ever do so, as there will always be opinions. Instead Riklis elects to send his message succinctly, opting to show the absurdity of such a cause in a more poignant and intimate way. He is extremely sympathetic to Salma and – funny enough - even more so to Mira, who represents the Israeli audience he is aiming for - who has to witness the absurdities as they happen and be unable to do anything about them As the Defence Minister, Don Tavory gets the thankless, two-dimensional cut-out character that is far from sympathetic, mainly because his opinions are seen to be deluded by politics and, thus, he shows very little backbone. Riklis makes his own case that these two types of Israeli will always pay some price or another for doing what they do to the neighbouring Palestinian. And that’s exactly when and where the movie ends.
PARIS [2008]
by Cedric Klapisch
Getting this out of the way, it is nice to see a natural, less glamorous Juliette Binoche on the big screen. Mind you,[ don’t be mistaken, there’s still that twinkle in her eye, one that exudes a certain foreign chic-mystique. And she’s still as beautiful as ever, even entering her mid-forties. But that’s not the point at all, not in a Cedric Klapisch film. Renowned for his international hit AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE and its well-received follow-up PUPEES RUSSES, here Klapisch builds on his specialty of interwoven stories of the Altman variety and human dramedy of the Woody Allen kind.
But with PARIS, Klapisch even attempts to raise his own bar, but not necessarily with as much success, as he ambitiously tries his hand at a bigger scale variation of his previous hits. This time the mood’s a little more somber though and a lot less hyper. Using a large cast, led by some big French name stars, including a standout Fabrice Luchini as a lonely aging professor smitten by a student , as well as Francois Cluzet and Romain Duris, PARIS is an obvious love letter to the City of Lights and the many hopefuls living in its heart. Zigzagging from story to story and person to person, Klapisch aims to show how the old, traditional Paris is coming to grips with the advent of modernism – in its clashing effort to accept a new reality. It’s also the story of how men and women committed to habits try breaking them in hopes of progress and a move forward. It’s a story with lots of ideas, many about coming to terms with oneself. It’s also the cinematic tale of many characters looking across at their own wondrous city, mostly from balconies, windows and rooftops. It’s a film that tends to thematically show off many of its city’s visually stunning vantage points and one that seduces us in its ocular dance, if simply to remind us why PARIS is still named the most romantic city in the world.
What PARIS is not, I’m afraid, unlike AUBERGE, is a film destined to keep its audience truly immersed in the numerous lives at stake by either fate or luck. The filmmaker’s many ideas integrated into one can be appreciated by the viewer but the film itself hardly ever comes to life, at least not until a shocking twist resuscitates it and regains the film’s intended focus. Which is a real shame for a film this rich with potential. While its characters are always in conflict with each other or themselves., the audience rarely feels the tension. This can be because there are way too many half-baked stories to be told and some of his ideas get lost in the shuffle. Klapisch would have benefited had he truncated some of his less engaging storylines and focused primarily on central characters and specific plot developments. Perhaps this would have defeated his own idea of the PARIS concept, at least in method, but he would most certainly have made a stronger film. But for now we can appreciate the film as is and eagerly await his next film, hoping a little less ambition, or even effort, will result in an even better film, one perhaps akin to AUBERGE ESPAGNOLE. As it stands, Klapisch should be so honoured to have such established actors this good in his film and a Juliette Binoche deserving of praise.
W. [2008]
by Oliver Stone
An Oliver Stone film was once an event. Lately not so, [when was his real last big film? NATIRAL BORN KILLERS perhaps?] But for years I have tried to make my darndest effort to keep the faith – There’s always hope in me that the once controversial director will still have something truly worthwhile to say. I am sorry to report that in W. he doesn’t really have much to say, at least nothing that we don’t already know and, although not a total failure, here Stone’s working with a mostly dull script [by scribe Stanley Weiser] that sorely misses the mark.
Of course, being an Oliver Stone creation, W. has its merits starting with the creative casting of many worthy actors, especially a intrinsically spot-on Josh Brolin as the currently out-going President of the United States. Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Cheney, James Cromwell as daddy Bush, Elizabeth Banks as Laura and Jeffrey Wright as Colin Powell are most notable for delivering exciting performances in a film that mostly fails to generate much excitement. But with every effort to get the casting right on target there are bound to be some mishaps. Here most awkwardly are Ellen Burstyn in an all too manic variation of Barbara Bush [which I found hard to fathom] and, worst off, an uncanny Thandie Newton [so perfectly icy in ROCKNROLLA] as Condoleeza Rice channelled as pure parody via a Spitting Image puppet. She does not even speak for a good half of the film but just watching her in the background elicits unintentional laughter. Trust me, it’s not done on purpose, it’s just what it is. Yet, sadly, in stark contrast to her lapdog of a performance, the film itself never aims for parody which is why Newton’s performance is so jarring.
The film itself darkly veers back and forth from Bush’s college hazing years through his bout with alcohol, flirtations with Laura and, most importantly, his conflicts and clashes with his parents, especially his dad. This is the film’s focal point, perhaps even its weakness, trying to convey the influences and foundations that made George W. Bush the man he is today, in a grave time of war. By crisscrossing through timelines, the film tries to somewhat correlate Dubya’s decisions today as a result of how his family’s disapproval shaped his convictions. However, Stone’s effort is hardly convincing enough to make us buy into how one man’s own personal demons could have caused him to make such grave international errors. It’s by a long stretch of the imagination that Stone can make us believe that Bush Junior is more callous than we may already believe [at least those of us Democratic-minded that want to see the film in the first place]. The man currently running the country does a good job of that on his own.
I wanted to love W. and by some point was resigned to just liking it. But by the end I was simply happy that there was something worthwhile recommending. This would be Brolin’s surprisingly sympathetic turn as W. Brolin manages to make us believe that the drunk, angry young man in need of some TLC, who at times even comes off moronic or careless, really does deserve some more affection, even a hug, from his mom and dad. Not sure that this is what I wanted to learn from an Oliver Stone feature but it is certainly a credit to Brolin that I may dislike the image of the man a tiny bit less. As for Stone, continue churning them out. I am sure you still have it in you and I’ll even gladly accept another U TURN.
HAPPY-GO-LUCKY [2008]
by Mike Leigh
Don’t get me wrong, I am a Mike Leigh fan and thought SECRETS AND LIES was among the best films the year it came out. It also made me a huge admirer of Brenda Blethyn, and for that I have only Leigh to thank. And now, years later, in storms little Sally Hawkins, wide-eyed, naïf, accepting accolades at every turn for this wildly, critically acclaimed film that has hit the art-house market like a ton of bricks and has made a mainstream dent [and soon, a household name of Hawkins]. So it is natural that I’d pursue this little independent feature for my betterment. Well let me share this, I am most certainly among the minority that has found very little fun to be had in this mostly annoying and very awkward film. First off, from the start I couldn’t relate, not to the characters not to their world. This only became problematic when I realized that perhaps Leigh wanted us all to somehow connect.
Sally Hawkin may collect prizes come next Winter [an Oscar nomination – you know, the one that generally happens from left field – is imminent] so she’ll certainly be on the map for the next little while. And I am not going to blame Hawkins at all, she’s done a perfect job on me being unlikeable. It’s just that I did not buy into the whole world of perfectly happy Poppy no-matter-what and how everything around her comes apart at the seams while she still manages to see every cup half full, even though my instincts tell me that it’s simply because she’s an annoying freak.
And perhaps that is even Leigh’s whole point, that she is unique [he certainly wouldn’t call her a freak] – a one of a kind – and Leigh is saying that it is okay to be such a standout and, perhaps even a cutout, and never have to compromise. Yet at the end, I’m not even sure that I was sold on the lesson of tolerance, mainly because the film had other, really irritating personalities, ones that Poppy was either giving advice to or seeking words of wisdom from. You see, Poppy is just the start of my dismay. I just wasn’t ready to listen to what they all had to say.
But let me just say this, Hawkins, I give Hawkins full credit for making me dislike Poppy so much. Freak, I tell you, Poppy’s a real freak of nature, always smiling as if drug induced. I just couldn’t get past that whole point. I was never sure what made her this way. Sitting in the cinema agitated was perhaps not Leigh’s intentions for me. Even S&L characters who clashed [and had a lot of unredeemable qualities] somewhat managed to reconcile and grate slightly less on my conscientious nerves. I really wanted to love Poppy and her unique dress style, her silly giggle, her sunny demeanour and the entire shtick that came with all that but I felt as if I was actually forced to do so. It reminds me of an introduction to someone at a party, someone whom I have no intentions of conversing with, and it all becomes pretty awkward from the word get go. Leigh will need to forgive me as he’s surely made lots of other fans. Hawkins, perhaps we’ll meet again under a better circumstance
BURN AFTER READING
By Ethan Coen and Joel Coen
I was surprised at how much I actually enjoyed this latest Coen Brothers entry – against all odds, especially as it was coming off the heels of their Oscar winning NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and, once unveiled at Cannes in May, generally got slammed by the critics. True, BURN AFTER READING received its lukewarm reception mostly because it turned out not quite the loud out funny film one would have hoped or even wished for. I’m afraid that for that kind of fun you’d need to go back, way back, to the collaborators film library [THE BIG LEBOWSKI, maybe].
BURN AFTER READING is not even brilliantly as conceived as were the Coens’ previous critical successes. Yet what BURN AFTER READING is, and you can be sure it is, is a sly piece of work – an almost outdated once-topical farce [and that’s just the start of its ingeniousness] that has a lot more in common with Alfred Hitchcock’s FAMILY PLOT [perhaps a genre route Hitchock, himself, would have ultimately taken] and a nod here and there to cold war espionage thrillers. Combined, the story makes a great ride into the macabre, providing a random chuckle here and there.
BURN AFTER READING also schools solid acting by a fierce-to-have-fun ensemble that includes George Clooney [sexy], Brad Pitt [sleazy sexier], Tilda Swinton [a fascinating watch] and John Malkovich [no matter what he plays, always slimy] and especially benefits from Frances McDormand’s oft hysterical portrayal of a slightly out of whack woman obsessed with her own physical imperfection and Richard Jenkins as her lovelorn manager, helplessly trying to vie for her affection, let alone attention. That most of these lunatics wind up seriously dead should be of no surprise as the plot unfolds.
And that the film is also shockingly and brutally immoral, and does not take itself seriously in being so, makes for most of the fun. Naturally that depends on how amorally non-judgemental you are willing to be. And as we’ve come to depend on them, the Coens still know how to throw the audience an oversized thinking bone as food for thought; even in a comedy with few redeeming characters and a far-fetched plot, they still want us challenged. Yes, it is precisely this mishmash of ideas and personalities all rolled into a big pile of ferocious wit that keeps the film’s energy level at hyper speed and somehow always with a nodding wink. Perhaps BURN is unable to be the perfect film it strives to be because the viewing public may easily mistaken its moronic characters and their ludicrous ways for the brothers’ inanely absurd attempt to make us laugh – and end up feeling slightly cheated. After all, from watching BURN AFTER READING, most of the laughter is contained deep inside us with a slight discomfort for what’s going on.
QUANTUM OF SOLACE
By Marc Forster
Don’t believe the dissension. This is not a bad Bond at all, not by far. And it is not a dumb one either. QUANTUM is a thinking man’s Bond, a film that is just as much about hard-hitting feelings as it is about action. But don’t be mistaking it for a chick flick of sorts. This time, Bond – as amply portrayed for a second time by the physically exciting Daniel Craig - goes slightly analytical, even philosophical, while struggling with his conflicted emotions. In fact, I read somewhere that QUANTUM OF SOLACE is akin to THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK in that it works as a continuum to a storyline, emphasizing the motivational transference of its main character. That would be just about right in many ways.
Still, in this case, a bruised and blue James Bond, as played with equal dose of inertia and verve by Craig, is seeking revenge for the death of his beloved Vesper, last seen underwater in CASINO ROYALE. He’s so volatile and maybe even unpredictable that his behaviour begins to even cast some doubt on his loyally fierce leader M [the ever reliable Judi Dench]. Well, true enough EMPIRE was only the second of a back-then sci-fi trilogy while QUANTUM is yet the twenty-second of a series of spy-chic films with a wide fan base. And even the change of suave leads from Connery all the way to Craig cannot dissuade a faithful audience from flocking to see our man, O07, in action. In fact, Craig is proving to be quite the man, as he brings in more and more money to the franchise than ever.
Yet this is truly the first time that Judi Dench has been best utilised in this series, even if this is her sixth turn as M. This time out, they gave her strong-willed character some unnerving moments of indecision. Bond’s actions begin to present quite a dilemma for her and Dench plays her part cool and collected yet still with a tinge of uncertainty. And Dench does so very effectively. I know it is way too ideal for me to set such high expectations, but this is the first time I’ve wished for Dench a supporting actress Oscar nomination as M ever since I felt that her over-praised turn in SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE did not deserve such notice.
As villain, hush puppy Mathieu Amalric [THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY] plays a spineless profiteer with oily menace. Much has been made about his Dominic Greene lacking a trademark scar of sorts, generally characterizing a Bond baddie. But trust me, he does not need any additional make up. He is still an effective heel. Olga Kurylenko, a Ukrainian beauty, plays the selfish, vengeance-ful Camille convincingly but does not fully register as a Bond girl. She’s missing the conviction.
If anything can be said of Marc Forster’s direction, is that the man responsible for FINDING NEVERLAND knows how to capture dramatic tension and imploding sensibilities but is far less successful with his action sequences. His are choppily edited and chaotically rendered. At times hard to follow, you kind of lose interest in the chase and, ultimately, can’t wait for Bond to start internalizing once again. So if you like your introspection stirred, not shaken, this Bond’s for you too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment