I was very impressed with Joe Wright’s Anna Karenina. It’s one of the best and most radical adaptations of the Tolstoy novel that I have seen.
.
Pitch Perfect. B-. It’s cute, and it’s funny enough, but Bring It On did the same thing better twelve years ago, only with cheerleading instead of A Capella singing. Anna Kendrick continues to be one of the best young actresses, however, and proves she’s also a damn fine singer. The A Capella is the big draw here, and I’ll probably buy the soundtrack. Rebel Wilson is the scene stealer. This will be a well-reviewed film, and I expect most critics to like it more than I do. It’s worth a matinee, and if you like Kendrick, it’s worth the price of admission. (For the record, my price of admission was $0.00, because it was a free advance screening.) Review coming soon.
@J&K
In the director’s commentary, James (or one of the producers), say she (Tanya’s friend) was like some sort of mythic oracle.
That’s exactly what she is.
I also love the scene where Stevie’s “fiends” give him advice on what to do when he gets to prison.
Is that the white supremacists? (That was a very uncomfortable scene.)
I don’t know if I have seen a documentary that put me through so many emotional states of confusion.
Have you seen Dear Zachary? It’s not by Steve James, but your comment made me think of this. If you want the full effect of the film, go in blind.
@DT, I’m interested to know what you think about this. As I said, I don’t mind it and like it if it is done well; it gives a very distinct style most of the time, as it presents these countries/cities the way a (western?) viewer wants to see them. So I guess I like this travel brochure style of filming, but perhaps it can subtract from the actual culture of these places…?
Reminds me of a topic that has come up before about countries making films (about or set in their own country) that are presented in a way that would most appeal to international viewers, particularly the US. With Australia for example, we always get those stereotypical outback films with Aboriginals, kangaroos and the like, as this is I guess the sort of thing that people want to see of Australia. This sort of style probably distorts views of cultures, but is this such a bad thing?
@Joks, sure. I’m inclined to believe they aren’t distanced from that perspective (those two directors anyway), given what you’ve just said yourself, tying in with the auteur theory yadda yadda.
“i also find it interesting the way Allen has portrayed American women vis-a-vis European women. particularly in Vicky Cristina and Midnight In Paris.”
Yeah, superficial would be the right word here too. Fairly stereotypical depictions of uncultured/materialistic vs. artistic/thoughtful, for the most part.
@Glegs
“I don’t mind it and like it if it is done well; it gives a very distinct style most of the time, as it presents these countries/cities the way a (western?) viewer wants to see them. So I guess I like this travel brochure style of filming”
I’m the same. I guess it comes down to whether you’re seeking that, more escapist fare, or whether you’re more into realism. Both are valid forms of cinema catering to different audiences. And I also don’t mind either (e.g. I personally enjoyed both Vicky Cristina and Biutiful). In terms of broader cultural imprints beyond cinema though (distortion of cultures)…that is a more complex question. I’m not sure I have a definitive answer myself.
“we always get those stereotypical outback films with Aboriginals, kangaroos and the like”
This in itself stereotyping the Australian film industry ;) Or at least reductive to the mainstream, arguably. Haha
Is that the white supremacists? (That was a very uncomfortable scene.)
It was very uncomfortable, especially when James tries to explain why he wants to help Stevie; despite his best efforts throughout, he can never really explain himself. But it was also kind of funny, to me, in how the guy was a sort of overblown, self-confident, KKK-hick. He reminded me of a character Danny McBride would play. Apparently, one of the people in that scene (who I presume was also part of whatever white supremacy club they had out there), actually worked with disabled children.
Have you seen Dear Zachary? It’s not by Steve James, but your comment made me think of this. If you want the full effect of the film, go in blind.
I have seen, and liked, Dear Zachary. But (and my memory may be foggy) I also thought it was a manipulative and easy film. Stevie does the hard thing, which is to ask the viewer to sympathize with and show compassion (for lack of a better word) with the “villain”, while also reminding us of the (for lack of a better word, again) evil that rests inside of him. Dear Zachary, on the other hand, displays an (certainly righteous) indignation which actually discourages any compassion or understanding (perhaps undeserved) towards the “villain” . While watching Stevie I had to question and reexamine—the state of emotional confusion— how I felt about things like justice and evil and human nature (and what he did is pretty close to the worst thing a person can do), but I didn’t have to do that with the latter film because it’s easy to hate the bad guy (or girl, in this case) and love the good guys. It was a powerful and emotional film though, especially considering I had no idea what it was about going in
haha, probably! Admittedly I have shamefully limited knowledge on Australian film, so I’m just judging from the ones that have and get the most attention. Out of curiosity, if you don’t mind me asking, are you doing a course to do with film?
“Admittedly I have shamefully limited knowledge on Australian film”
Don’t feel bad, I’m pretty sure this would include most Australians (including myself!). I’m actually seriously considering devoting a marathon quest to rectify this, as I think there are a lot of interesting, (just) smaller works out there that could say something positive about our film industry. But that’s another thread…
And I’m not a film student of any kind, no; entirely self-‘taught’ (I thought this was pretty self-evident sometimes! Haha). Any particular reason you ask? Or are you, for that matter?
Australian films are basically a waste of time imo, but there are some worth seeing. maybe 20 or so
Yeah, the keyword there was ‘interesting’, as opposed to ‘resounding’ or ‘ground-breaking’. But that’s enough for me ;)
^^^haha yeah! the ‘interest’ is mostly a by product of morbid curiosity, and a grudging sense of obligation. :-)
Yeah, that’s yet another area of film I want to do a more in depth exploration of, but there are so many areas/genres/directors that I want to explore it’s hard to limit myself! I’ve attempted to take on your director-quest idea in the past month, but even doing three different directors I keep on getting sidetracked!
I asked because of you mentioning your uni library, and the obvious fact that you’re interested in film ;) I am not; I have to finish school first! Don’t really have any desire to attempt to go into the film industry anyway. I’d prefer to just be a casual film lover. Anyway, according to my film student brother, the only hope for anyone in the Australian industry is to go into television.
Hehe. I’ve picked up a Mizoguchi trend, who are the other two? I guessed I’ve just learnt how to juggle different films and directors and whatnot merely over years of intense film-viewing.
And yeah I’m the same as you, it’s all just a passion on the sidelines with no plans to take it further. And other than the limited size of the film industry here which you mention, I’m also not exactly keen on the idea of having to write 2,500 word essays on the symbolism of chandeliers in Three Colors Blue, in the case of formally studying film haha.
As fun as that sounds! The other two directors are Chris Marker and Bergman. Most of Marker’s films are incredibly difficult if not outright impossible to get ones hands on, so he’s proving to be a difficult quest; at the moment I’m working through the Owl’s Heritage, which after thinking I’d never be able to see it I stumbled across two ways of viewing it, one of which is in very crisp quality! As for Bergman, I realise looking through my ratings for the month that I’ve been completely sidetracked from him. Hm.
Ah that’s right. Yeah even my uni library only has Sans soleil and La jetee, so I did track some of your Marker viewings last month I think. You certainly can’t go wrong with any Bergman though, fo sho. I’m curious to get to his more minor works someday too.
’ai tué ma mère 2009
Xavier Dolan’s first film
7.9/10
Link
Been seeing some more screwball comedies:
One Rainy Afternoon (Rowland V Lee, 1936) – wears out its welcome very quickly, and the lead, Francis Lederer, is smug and irritating. So is the script – it’s one of those films where someone tells a “joke” and everyone else in the scene needs to laugh so the audience will know that it was funny. 3/10
True Confession (Wesley Ruggles, 1937) – apparently this gets some horrible reviews from some well-known critics (Leonard Maltin hates it apparently). It doesn’t deserve them – a great premise, manic pacing, and some very clever scenes. Sure it’s a bit of a mess too, but that’s all part of the fun, and it teams Carole Lombard, Fred MacMurray and a very drunk John Barrymore. 8/10
The Young in Heart (Richard Wallace, 1938) – okay, you can accuse this one of sentimentality too, but it’s really well done, enjoyable throughout, and often very funny. Janet Gaynor’s last starring role before her 20-year hiatus from the screen. 8.5/10
The Lady is Willing (Mitchell Leisen, 1942) – another screwball that starts out really well but veers from great comedy to mediocre sentimental drama by the end. Marlene Dietrich is hilarious though. 7/10
The More the Merrier (George Stevens, 1943) – hard to go wrong with Jean Arthur and Charles Coburn. The first half hour is brilliant, but it sort of loses its impetus from there. Still good. 7.5/10
“The Lady is Willing (Mitchell Leisen, 1942) – another screwball that starts out really well but veers from great comedy to mediocre sentimental drama by the end. Marlene Dietrich is hilarious though. 7/10”
Agreed — this is one strange film. That odd little scene where Fred MacMurray plays the piano to help Dietrich get to sleep is lit and shot in such a way that it looks like MacMurray’s plotting to kill her.
“That odd little scene where Fred MacMurray plays the piano to help Dietrich get to sleep is lit and shot in such a way that it looks like MacMurray’s plotting to kill her.”
That would have been a better ending! Spoilers ahead: There was one thing about the film that I found really unusual for a screwball comedy: it enters some really dark territory, with the baby on the operating table. I can’t think of any other screwball besides Stage Door that really goes anywhere like that; even the ones that deal with death and murder and such, like Arsenic and Old Lace or True Confession mostly just make a joke of it.
@J&K
It was very uncomfortable, especially when James tries to explain why he wants to help Stevie; despite his best efforts throughout, he can never really explain himself.
If I recall, they were either trying to get James to do something for them and/or buddy up to him as if James shared their views. (I’d hate to have been James in that situation.)
But it was also kind of funny, to me, in how the guy was a sort of overblown, self-confident, KKK-hick. He reminded me of a character Danny McBride would play.
Yeah, and James is great at capturing these people in these type of situations. (I love when docs do this.)
Apparently, one of the people in that scene (who I presume was also part of whatever white supremacy club they had out there), actually worked with disabled children.
I want to see a doc on that guy!
I have seen, and liked, Dear Zachary. But (and my memory may be foggy) I also thought it was a manipulative and easy film. Stevie does the hard thing, which is to ask the viewer to sympathize with and show compassion (for lack of a better word) with the “villain”, while also reminding us of the (for lack of a better word, again) evil that rests inside of him. Dear Zachary, on the other hand, displays an (certainly righteous) indignation which actually discourages any compassion or understanding (perhaps undeserved) towards the “villain” . While watching Stevie I had to question and reexamine—the state of emotional confusion— how I felt about things like justice and evil and human nature (and what he did is pretty close to the worst thing a person can do), but I didn’t have to do that with the latter film because it’s easy to hate the bad guy (or girl, in this case) and love the good guys. It was a powerful and emotional film though, especially considering I had no idea what it was about going in
I agree with everything you said here. The one-sided depiction of the characters (especially the woman) was one of the criticisms I had. It would have been quite an achievement if the filmmaker could have provided a more nuanced depiction of the woman. I’m not sure I could have done it, given the circumstances. (It would be something if the filmmaker could go back and do a film just on that woman, investigaing her past and getting to know her as a person.)
test
fail
fail
fail
fail
What exactly does the “prevent this page from creating additional dialogs” do? No one ever explains new functionality on the site.
The Eye of the Storm (dir. Fred Schepisi, 2011)
3 1/2 stars (out of 5)The film itself is lovely, but flawed – JUDY DAVIS however, gives one of the most outstanding performances of her entire career, which is seriously saying something. As a devotee, I am biased. However, I’m also able to identify the difference between an easy day at the office, and something where she not only gets to sink her teeth into some talent-worthy material, but has to work for it. This is definitely the latter. Greatest work in almost a decade. Delicious.
Raging Bull: still a knockout, even after all these years. it honestly does not feel like a movie that was made over 30 years ago. im giving it 5/5 because it is.brilliant on every level—-i almost forgot how amazing the editing is—but i have two minor issues, and one is potentially major. 1. Occasionally Scorsese’s stylistic.flourishes seem incongruous with the raw and gritty tone, esp when they occur outside the ring. 2. the end quote. i always felt it seemed a little tacked on and out of place and Schrader feels the same way. i guess it largely comes down to how you interpret that final Waterfront rendition and how you think it relates to the character and story overall.
nothing else to criticise though. Deniros performance is every bit as impressive as i remembered it being. and there is an unusual poetry to this film at times that seems at odds with the material but somehow works. the credit sequence is also one of the best in American cinema for me. it. is beautiful.and.graceful, allowing us a.glimpse of a kind of brutal majesty from a safe distance; like a spectator at a zoo watching a tiger roam.around a cage.
J&K
Double Post
The trailer really doesn’t do the film justice though.
Stevie Trailer from Steve James on Vimeo.