BuzzSugar

Tribeca Review: Departures

PopSugar — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 15:30:03 -0700

Thanks to PopSugar, who is attending some Tribeca Film Festival screenings and writing reviews for me this week!

Departures won the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar this year, and when I caught it last Friday at the Tribeca Film Festival, I quickly saw why it deserved the honor. The Japanese film centers around a man named Daigo Kobayashi (Masahiro Motoki), a cellist who moves back to his rural hometown with his wife Mika (Ryoko Hirosue) after his orchestra in Tokyo is forced to shut down.

When he returns home, Kobayashi gives up his life of being a musician and responds to a want ad looking for someone to work "with departures." Instead of it being a travel agency like he expected, the ad turns out to be a misprint; in fact, the job is working with "the departed." Undertakers hire the company to prepare dead bodies for casketing and then cremation. Although it sounds morbid, the movie has very humorous moments as Kobayashi learns the ins and outs of the trade, but where it is funny it's also sad.

Kobayashi is ashamed of his new job and goes to great efforts to lie about what he is doing to his unsuspecting and loving wife. Kobayashi's boss, Ikuei Sasaki (Tsutomu Yamazaki), is a man of few words, but when he does speak, his meaningful moments are peppered with an unexpected dry humor. Ikuei also provides emotional, respectful, and touching moments as he performs an encoffinment with the family of the deceased looking on. For more of my thoughts on Departures, just read more.

The movie's "departures" aren't restricted to Kobayashi's career - during the film, he wonders if his current situation is punishment for not taking care of his own dying mother years earlier. His father left his family when he was 6, and as viewers, we watch him learn from his new father figure - his boss. As the ritual of encoffinment becomes more familiar, it's hard not to feel the families' stages of grief as they say goodbye to their loved ones. The acting is superb, and the musical score only enhances the many emotions one feels when watching this powerful movie. The end feels a little drawn out, but all in all, director Yojiro Takita has put together a wonderful portrayal of how the living deal with death and love.

Source

Last Chance Harvey: Realistically Adorable

BuzzSugar — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:30:15 -0800

Last Chance Harvey tells a basic, simple story of a burgeoning love and one that, in a rare instance, isn't about hard-bodied youngsters. Not so much a May-December romance as, say, October-December, it features two of cinema's most esteemed living actors in a narrative that is all the more lovable for its straightforwardness and simplicity. Simple, basic, straightforward . . . does that sound boring? Somehow, it's actually not.

Dustin Hoffman plays Harvey, an aging pianist who, having given up on his dreams of playing jazz, now struggles to remain relevant in his job composing music for commercials. Kate (Emma Thompson) works at the airport and meets Harvey in one of the airport’s restaurants when Harvey travels to London for his estranged daughter’s wedding. The two sad sacks get to talking and end up spending a pleasant day together, a surprise for both of them. Harvey had planned on attending his daughter’s ceremony and not the reception, but Kate convinces him to go - and he insists she accompany him. They are smitten with each other, but in the end Kate must decide if she truly wants to trust in love again. That's most of the story itself, now for more of my take on it, read more.

Fantastical stories make for wonderful escapism, but part of this movie's charm is how feasible it is and how relatable the main duo is. These are flawed, funny, very human characters, and because their flirtation and even their topics of conversation are so plausible, the sweetness of it all is that much more affecting.

Much of this is due to the pitch-perfect acting. I'm convinced there could be nobody else in these roles besides Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thompson. What a pair! In the first third or so of the movie, we get to know Harvey mostly as a pitiable, bumbling old man who is desperate to remain relevant in his work. Scene after scene harshly hammers home the fact that Harvey is a relic in a constantly advancing field. What with computers doing all his work, he's not really needed anymore. So, he fights tooth and nail to remain important, which only makes him seem more and more pathetic. We need these cringe-worthy scenes of Harvey's crestfallen face and gradual acceptance of his changing purpose in life, however, so that the payoff later is more intensely sweet - when he delights in getting to know Kate, and when he starts to figure out how he might fit into his daughter's life.

Thompson's Kate, meanwhile, is easy to relate to, full of good humor and kindness and realistic ambitions. She's a very "normal," attractive woman who enjoys children but just didn't do the whole married-with-kids thing years ago. Now she's a little bit older and a little bit sad, but she's not in agonizingly bad shape. She's just going along, doing her thing, not without hope for a slightly sweeter future - much like the rest of us. She is so normal, we root for her all the more, wanting her to succeed and get the guy and have some excitement . . . because that could be any of us up there. Perhaps that is what endears this movie to me so much - it provides a true and comforting sense of hope. It's adorably, realistically hopeful.

Source

Bride Wars: Trite and Joyless

BuzzSugar — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 05:45:13 -0800

Movies about weddings can be so fun and girly and sweet. It's easy to get swept up in the sparkly rings and the hunt for the perfect dresses and the cream-colored towering cakes. Plus, at the heart of Bride Wars there's also this relationship between two BFFs and I'm all for movies with an emphasis on the strength of female friendship. But this film doesn't do right by either the fun bridal aspect or the "girlfriend" aspect and comes up seeming empty and kinda sad.

Emma (Anne Hathaway) and Liv (Kate Hudson) are the bestest of friends who spent much time as children dreaming of (and role-playing) their weddings. Now that they're adults (Liv a harsh, high-powered businesswoman and Emma the sensitive low-paid schoolteacher), they plan to be each other's maid of honor and as luck would have it, they both get engaged around the same time. But when they meet with wedding planner extraordinaire Marion St. Claire (Candice Bergen), an administrative hiccup causes the two weddings to be booked at the Plaza Hotel on the same date. When neither one will move her wedding, the two brides-to-be turn against each other, trying to sabotage the other's wedding, and their friendship suffers. For more of my thoughts on all this, read more.

For a "comedy," there's not much humor involved, and regardless of whether the intention was to satirize bridezillas, the truth is that the whole thing has this eerie antiquated feeling to it. What year are we living in? What era is this when two grown women have spent their lives - and apparently their whole friendship - aspiring mostly just to have lavish weddings? And then, when the weddings are booked on the same day, they attack each other? How is this that important? One of them is even demoted at her job because, as it appears in the movie, her hysterical little lady brain can't handle the stress of destroying her "best friend's" wedding and navigating the big bad business world. At the core of it all, their main "problem" is hard to accept. Just move the dang wedding!

During the moments when they’re supposedly these superclose best-best-best friends, I just can't buy it. They don't really seem to even like each other. But then when they are scheming and tricking each other, it's just kinda boring. Emma gets an orange tan. Liv's hair turns blue. Yawn. For one thing, we see most of this in the trailer so none of it is a funny surprise. For another thing, it's not particularly interesting or clever - it's merely cruel and catty.

Anne Hathaway saves some scenes with her endearing ways and that big ol' toothy smile. But Kate Hudson just looks. . . mean. She looks angry and mean all the time. Even when she’s supposed to be happy or sweet or apologetic there's no getting past that meanness. Something about her look in this movie, combined with her hateful, selfish character makes it difficult to like or care about Liv.

The movie redeems itself a little toward the end when the women have had their own journeys that ultimately lead them closer to each other and more in tune with the women they want to be, etc. etc. etc. But the sweetness of this doesn't quite make up for the joylessness of all that came before it.

Photo courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Revolutionary Road: A Scenic and Unsettling Journey

BuzzSugar — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 15:30:33 -0800

When I first read Revolutionary Road, I thought it might be too multilayered to make a good movie. But I held out hope that Richard Yates's 1961 novel of suburban discontent could really triumph visually, with its lush '50s setting, dark humor, the awkward embarrassment of characters realizing life hasn't turned out the way they planned, and the quiet resentment that breeds.

When I heard Sam Mendes was directing with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio starring, I really yearned for this movie to be great - which probably explains why I was somewhat disappointed by an otherwise thoughtful film. To read my bittersweet reaction, read more.

Revolutionary Road is incredibly artful, capturing the romance of the city, the seduction of the country, and the stifling effect either place can have on unfulfilled lives. DiCaprio and Winslet deliver aching performances as Frank and April Wheeler, two wannabe bohemians who feel obliged to move to the suburbs when their first kid arrives. As with the book, it's difficult to sympathize with the protagonists even as we identify with them; we resent them for how much they resent each other.

The novel chronicles the minute details of the Wheelers' lives from the moment they meet, and blessedly, Mendes makes some tough choices in order to keep his movie at two hours. It begins when the Wheelers are already settled with two kids, showing snippets of their younger selves in flashbacks. Some of the moments where Mendes chooses to linger - such as in the fastidiously drawn-out final scene - are brilliant. But other choices left me wanting more context. Even my boyfriend, who has not read the book, agreed: The movie is missing something to help us understand why the characters act the way they do.

It's easy to imagine how the book was totally unsettling when it was released, and the movie is not without haunting and hard-to-swallow realism. But suburban funk is such a common theme nowadays that we need to know the characters beyond broad strokes. For instance, Frank gets a job where his dad worked primarily because he appreciates the irony. This isn't explained in the movie, but for me, knowing how the Wheelers got themselves into this situation makes the story even more tragic. The heart-wrenching scenes of the couple arguing would be far more poignant if we knew them better. Thankfully, DiCaprio and Winslet can communicate on their faces what the script can't always say.

Photos courtesy of Paramount Vantage

Slumdog Millionaire: A Frenetic Tale of Heartbreak and Joy

BuzzSugar — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 09:30:03 -0800

Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire isn't the kind of movie that sits back and waits for you to fall in love with it. It doesn't give you the chance to refuse. From the opening minutes, it washes over you, sucks you in, and spins you through a whirlwind of colors and sounds and emotions. It's a movie that is completely, gloriously alive.

The movie centers on Jamal Malik (Dev Patel), an Indian teenager who's poised to win 20,000,000 rupees in his country's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? The movie opens with him kidnapped and tortured by police who want to know who's feeding Jamal the answers. Doctors and lawyers don't even win the way he has; how could a kid from the streets possibly know all of this? The rest of the movie unfolds around that question, as Jamal explains through flashbacks and memories how every moment of his life has brought him here.

It's a joy to watch, but that doesn't mean it's an entirely joyful movie; parts of Jamal's story are downright painful, in the same way that watching The Wire makes me ache inside. But Slumdog never falls too deeply into heartbreak. Mirroring the path of its protagonist's life, every moment is another brick building to a perfect conclusion. For the rest of my thoughts, just read more.

Slumdog traces Jamal and his older brother, Salim, through three phases of their life, starting when they're boys orphaned in a religious riot. Props to the casting directors for finding two of the cutest, pluckiest kids on earth to play the young Salim and Jamal; child Jamal's wide-eyed sweetness goes a long way toward creating a fondness for the teenage version. The two escape one near-tragedy only to stumble into another, surviving only by their street smarts and a little bit of luck. In one sequence, the boys sneak onto a passenger train, make some money selling trinkets on board, get caught stealing food from the dining car, and are ultimately (and literally) thrown off; MIA's "Paper Planes" is the background music there, and it's the saddest that song has ever sounded. Things only get tougher as the boys age and start to move in different directions: Jamal charming but shy, Salim a rough-and-tough gangster who's always tempting danger.

Throughout it all there's Latika, the girl Jamal and Salim find during the riots and bring into their tight-knit world - their third Musketeer. Even as a child, Jamal feels it's his destiny to be with her, and that belief drives all of his actions over the next decade, no matter how reckless or improbable. In the midst of a very modern movie that bursts with color and drumbeats and quick, handheld camera shots, Danny Boyle and his cast create an old-fashioned romance.

Considering the breadth of what the movie covers - Bombay's shift from sprawling slums to gleaming megalopolis, the growth of three characters played by three different actors apiece, the seamless meeting of flashbacks and the present - Boyle's confident direction does a remarkable job of tying everything together, while Bollywood legend A.R. Rahman's soundtrack propels it forward with a driving beat. And while Slumdog is hardly subtle with its ending, it's earned; it's the only ending that fits. It left me clapping with joy through streaming tears, an absolute ode to love.

Photos courtesy of Fox Searchlight

The Spirit: A Flashy Story Lacking Soul

BuzzSugar — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:30:50 -0800

From dime-store digests to lush graphic novels, the comic-book genre has fully established itself as part of high culture. Along with the literary upgrade have come equally artful films, including The Dark Knight and Sin City. But for all its highbrow hopes, The Spirit plays like a B movie.

Written and directed by Frank Miller of Sin City and 300 fame, The Spirit is no Sin City or even the less cerebral 300. As both artful sketch and pure entertainment, The Spirit is lacking. For all the highs and lows, read more.

With its black-and-white brushstroke canvas and film-noir narration, The Spirit starts with promise. In cahoots with the local cops, the Spirit (Gabriel Macht) is a slain policeman turned subdued superhero and ladies man who feels indebted to keep watch over his city.

Our hero has a campy rivalry with the requisite villain, a theatrical mad scientist known as the Octopus (Samuel L. Jackson) with a genetically engineered posse of doofus henchman. When one brute gets killed off, Octopus and his evil assistant (Scarlett Johansson) just make more, all in pursuit of an urn containing the blood of Heracles that the Octopus needs to secure his immortality.

The plot is fairly simple. Yet with each new character who is introduced- a devoted doctor smitten with the Spirit, an angel of death draped in a sparkly veil, a jewel thief who is the Spirit's childhood love (Eva Mendes) - the movie gets ever more spiritless. Despite its loftiest constructs, mythic undertones, and bizarre Nazi imagery, The Spirit is almost cool but mostly just awkward. The aesthetics look impressive, but the tone is all off. It's like the comic-book film equivalent of a one-camera sitcom without a laugh track that just isn't funny enough.

Photos Courtesy of Lionsgate

Valkyrie: Shallow and Underwhelming

BuzzSugar — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 07:30:18 -0800

While there are a zillion World War II movies out there already, I kept an open mind going into the Tom Cruise star vehicle Valkyrie. Sure, this is a movie that has been dogged by bad press from start to finish (even due, in part, to the fact that Cruise is a Scientologist) but I can see that there is a fascinating movie to be made out of a German resistance movement involving Nazi officers in Adolf Hitler's inner circle.

High-ranking, aristocratic officers attempting to assassinate Hitler? There's so much to explore here! Were these men heroes? Or was it a desperate and calculated power grab when it was clear the Germans were losing the war? What did these men know about the mass murders of Jews that had taken place and when did they know it? Did any of them, including Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise) who led one of the most daring plots to kill Hitler, have a genuine crisis of conscience? And if so, what does that kind of moral awakening look like?

In a war that is often depicted very starkly as good vs. evil, within the German rank and file there were shades of gray and this makes for interesting psychological thriller fodder for sure. So why did Cruise and director Bryan Singer forego that kind of film in favor of a totally reductive, shallow, glossy, big-budget flick that will leave you feeling underwhelmed and a little icky because you just spent over an hour rooting for Nazis? I really don't know, but let's talk about it. Just read more.

First of all, I'm a little baffled at how little characterization exists in this movie. We are asked to very simply and easily accept these men as heroes and root for them when they are Nazis, for Pete's sake. Just trying to kill Hitler and place yourself and your pals into power isn't quite enough to make us care. And at times it's hard to root for people you know are going to fail because - spoiler alert? - Hitler survives the assassination attempt and World War II continues on.

The whole experience is confusing to say the least. For example, in the opening scene we see Cruise on the ground in Africa fighting on behalf of Hitler's Germany when the "enemy" (that would be the Allied forces fighting to stop Hitler from totally destroying Europe) airplanes zoom in to launch an air strike and bodies go flying everywhere. Instinctively my sympathy went toward the soldiers on the ground, but then. . . aren't these Nazis? Who am I rooting for here? And why?

My fundamental issues with the filmmakers' approach aside, the real question is: Is it entertaining popcorn cinema? And in my opinion the answer is no, not really. It's not the laugh-riot some thought it might be (Cruise, Nazis, eye-patch, ya know) thanks in part to a solid cast that props the movie up, including Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, and Eddie Izzard. It's not a very satisfying experience that fails to keep viewers on the edges of their seats, save the moment when Cruise's character attempts to plant a bomb quite literally under Hitler's feet. There's also a nicely executed political coup late in the movie that is captivating to watch - an example of the potential this movie had.

Finally, at the center of this wannabe-blockbuster is one of the most self-conscious performances of Cruise's career in which he takes all that burning intensity he so often brings to the silver screen and buries it away. I've read that part of Stauffenberg's heroism was his ability to recruit others to his cause based on sheer charisma and charm. Never would have guessed that from this portrayal.

Photos courtesy of MGM

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Not Quite a Fairytale

BuzzSugar — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:30:57 -0800

The notion of youth being wasted on the young is a compelling one, without a doubt. It inspired a famous Mark Twain quote, which in turn inspired an F. Scott Fitzgerald short story, which has now lent its name to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, a film starring Brad Pitt as the title character, born old and destined to die young.

It sounds like a fairytale, and at times, the screen version feels like one, with ethereal flashbacks, eerily spot-on visual effects, and a sweet if improbable romance between Benjamin and his normally-aging love, Daisy (Cate Blanchett). But director David Fincher and screenwriter Eric Roth almost crowd out the movie's central love story with too much stuff - there's a hurricane plot, a daughter learning the truth about her family, and nearly an hour of Benjamin's wacky adventures. Instead of enveloping the audience in a mystical story, it fights against its narrative, constantly breaking its own spell. Yet there are reasons to watch Benjamin Button even when it feels like work, so to see the rest of my thoughts, just read more.

Though it doesn't fully kick in till almost halfway through the movie, the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy is worth the price of admission. They're sweet as children (Daisy young, Benjamin physically decrepit) and as 20-somethings (Daisy cool and sophisticated, Benjamin finally starting to look like Brad Pitt), but it's when they meet in the middle, in their 40s, that their love story takes over the film. They don't have much time as equals, and that lends an urgency to their relationship that the rest of the movie lacks. Pitt rightfully gets praised for his work as Benjamin, but Blanchett should get more credit for her performance; unlike Pitt, she doesn't have a voiceover to guide her through the story, but she's a strong enough actress to show Daisy's emotions even without the luxury of explaining them.

It's a shame that Fincher and Roth couldn't trust that story to work on its own, because with that relationship at the center - and maybe with some deeper musings from Benjamin on what it means to be living his life this way - the movie could have been a masterpiece. Instead, it feels emotionally remote and over-cluttered, with a structure reminiscent of both Forrest Gump (for which Roth was also the screenwriter) and Titanic. The early scenes with Benjamin growing up in a New Orleans retirement home are strong - and Taraji P. Henson is outstanding as Queenie, the mother figure who discovers Benjamin abandoned on her stoop and raises him as her own - but once Benjamin leaves home and joins a tugboat crew, the movie drags. It doesn't help that the flashbacks are intercut with scenes of a dying Daisy in the hospital; that plotline never really hits its stride emotionally and mostly just feels detached. And a few references to Hurricane Katrina permanently anchor the movie in a particular era, which feels at odds with its more timeless qualities.

Luckily, just when Benjamin Button starts to feel aimless, the love story takes center stage - and, with that, the movie builds some momentum to reach a satisfying enough end. The special effects are also remarkable (and it's a good thing, because when you're talking about aging Brad Pitt's face and putting it on someone else's body, doing it poorly would be disastrous); I'd be shocked if Benjamin Button doesn't end up in contention for all kinds of visual effects and makeup Oscars. It will probably be a Best Picture contender, too, but I'm less convinced that it's deserving of that honor; as good as it is in parts, Benjamin Button ends up falling short of what it could have been.

Photos courtesy of Paramount Pictures

Marley & Me: Sweet, Just as Expected

BuzzSugar — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:30:17 -0800

In many ways, the movie Marley & Me is itself like a sweet little squirmy puppy. It's good natured and earnest, funny and cute. It turns out to be pretty much exactly what you expect if you've seen the trailers and/or read the book on which the movie is based: Literally a story about a crazy, uncontrollable dog whose life impacts a young couple's marriage in unexpected ways.

That said, the movie is often just as much about the protagonist, John Grogan (Owen Wilson) and his relationship with his wife Jennifer (Jennifer Aniston) as it is about the dog. And it's about the sacrifices we make for the ones we love - even for the ones we love who are furry and four-legged. Much of the time is spent following this husband and wife as they go through the growing pains of marriage: Finding a home (and then trying to find new homes in better neighborhoods), figuring out what they need professionally, having children, and making decisions about work goals vs. family, etc. etc. It's all very simple and normal, but there's a kind of comfort in that. For more of my thoughts on this, read more.

In terms of the narrative itself, there's nothing new here. Marriage is harder than we thought it would be! Kids are stressful! I wish I had a different job! It's all the same old normal things that most people go through. The main difference is that all the while there's this wacky dog who makes the humans' lives even more complicated - but also ultimately more rewarding.

There's something inherently good-humored about watching the crazy antics of a dog. With human drama and relationships there's all the judging that goes on and the complex emotions, but most people really enjoy animals on a basic level so there's a sort of purity to the enjoyment that comes from this movie. However, you can be sure that the dog is used at times to symbolize things for the humans ("Time to let you off your leash . . . hey, I'd like to feel that free, too . . ."). And plenty of scenes are entirely about the human characters. These performances are good but this isn't a movie you see for the performances (though Alan Arkin's portrayal of John's no-nonsense, vaguely paternal boss is consistently a breath of fresh air).

Overall, it's just nice to have something so purely good that a whole audience can agree on: That dog is cute and funny. There are plenty of provocative, divisive films in the world and then there's this one that only asks you to relax and have a good time. It's an easygoing movie about things that feel relatable and normal to us. There's no reinvention of the wheel, but what better movie to open around the holidays than one that is so familiar and comforting?

Photos courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

Wendy and Lucy: Pretty, Poignant, Kinda Boring

BuzzSugar — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:45:36 -0800

As a simple story about a young woman having a hard time of it, Wendy and Lucy is a bit irritating at times. But after viewing this quiet little movie directed and co-written by indie darling Kelly Reichardt, I sat with it and mulled it over for a few weeks. Only then did I realize how effective it is at capturing the bitter realities and melancholy that exists for those who live at or below the poverty lines and on the edges of our society.

It's certainly a downer - but a superbly rendered downer that may ultimately be seen as a cinematic snapshot of the times we're living in. Reichardt and her star, the impressive Michelle Williams, succeed at capturing a certain downtrodden vibe that's in the air nowadays and for that I can forgive it for being, well, boring. To see where I think it soars and where it stumbles, just read more.

You'll likely hear a lot of buzz around Williams's performance and it's deserved. She plays the role of Wendy, a sullen young woman living in her car as she makes her way across the country on her way to Alaska where she's heard there are jobs to be had. The movie opens in a small Oregon town where Wendy becomes stranded. It's near the end of Wendy's odyssey, evidenced by her dwindling cash pile and the breakdown of her car. Williams effortlessly portrays this young woman, about whom we know so little, in such a sympathetic way, you can't help but feel for her. We watch her encounter one disaster after another (including losing her adorable companion, Lucy the dog) and her frustration is palpable.

Reichardt takes full advantage of the Northwest setting, giving the movie a lush green but gritty realism which enhances the minimalist plot. Oh, and what little plot there is. I do wonder if the movie would have felt as real if some more detail and background were added to the character of Wendy herself. We're forced to get by with little hints here and there about who this girl is and how she got into such a terrible predicament through things like a quick pay phone call to a family member and small discussions here and there with a kindly security guard.

Wendy is a drifter, a free spirit with no clear place in our society. She doesn't really want to find success somewhere and she seems pissed off about it. Admittedly, I left the movie with a brain full of frustrating questions like, "But how does one so young and promising end up in her car with dog miles away from home? How does a young lady like that get it in her head the only jobs to be had are in Alaska? Where are her parents? Where are her friends?" But I suppose that's probably the point.

Source