(Todd's review here)
4 Stars
I was in love with Colin Farrell when I was younger. Three friends and I even formed the CFFC: Colin Farrell Fan Club. As I grew older and wiser, I realized that Colin is a hit-or-miss actor, with mostly misses (Miami Vice, Alexander, and The New World, just to name a few). But there are a handful of movies where he really shines: Tigerland (one of my few 5 star movies), Phone Booth, and In Bruges.
In Bruges started off slow for me, and I was just starting to lose interest when things started picking up. I originally thought this was going to be another fast-paced British crime story, but it's grittier and more realistic than that. It has it's violence and dark humor; it's got layers. I loved the interaction between Colin Farrell (Ray) and Brendan Gleeson (Ken). And while Farrell is good, Gleeson is the one who really carries the movie. Ray has baggage, but Ken is helping him shoulder it.
The ending was great, and not what I was expecting. I love it when that happens.
Showing posts with label Response. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Response. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Todd's Response: Sita Sings the Blues
(Robyn's Review Here)
3.5 Stars
So, I seem to be in a certain mood about movies lately and that is "Everything Has Been Done Before". Because of this funk, I found this movie very refreshing. Like Robyn mentioned, you really can't say anything bad about the visual effects because they are REALLY impressive. What impresses me the most about them is how unique the four different narrations are. When I was watching the movie, I assumed that four different animators had come together to layer their films, but it turns out that they are all done by the same sad lady. It's really saying something when you consider that most animators pick a certain style and stick with it. It becomes their signature and you can almost tell who did the movie before you read the credits. But this director is actually brave enough to try her hand at 4 distinctive styles and she does them very well.
I think the genius in the movie comes from two concepts. The idea of having 3 actual Indians recount the story (as best they can) brings a very comfortable feel to the movie. They aren't always sure of the details and sometimes even argue about what really happened, but it gives you the feeling that you are sitting around the dinner table with friends, drinking good wine, and listening to a great story. The other cool concept is having one story line being completely driven by 1920s music. The 2D Vector animation used in this segment is probably the most advanced of all the segments, so pairing it with music from the 1920s gives it a really interesting feel that hooks you from the beginning.
My criticisms of the movie are only a few, but I think they hurt the movie a good bit. While the Vector animation and 1920s music is cool initially, it is grossly overused. The concept is intriguing at first, but there are like 10 to 12 songs (and they almost all sound alike) so it leads you to check your watch on occasion to see how much time is left in the movie. Then there is the director's "almost" autobiographical story line. I understand that this is supposed to explain how the director came upon the story and the desire to make the film, but it is really unnecessary. Its entirety probably only adds up to 5 minutes (so it is not very developed) and I found myself being taken out of the movie trying to figure out just how this particular segment was supposed to relate to the rest of the film. In my opinion, this story about how the director was dumped by her husband really just needs to be in the commentary or added as a bonus material segment because it really has no place in the actual film. Lastly, I wasn't a big fan of the plot itself. While some may see it as an example of true love and devotion, I just see it as an incredibly sexist story about how women are second class citizens and should be subservient to their husbands. But then again, I could probably say the same thing about much of the stories from Christian mythology. (Side note: If you were just offended by the fact that I referred to some Bible stories as mythology, you need to get out more . . . seriously.)
All in all though, I think I'm on the same page as Robyn (doesn't happen too often). I'm not putting this on my all time best list or anything, but it's definitely worth checking out. Any if you smoke the ganja, then get some friends together, light up a bowl, and have a good damn night.
3.5 Stars
So, I seem to be in a certain mood about movies lately and that is "Everything Has Been Done Before". Because of this funk, I found this movie very refreshing. Like Robyn mentioned, you really can't say anything bad about the visual effects because they are REALLY impressive. What impresses me the most about them is how unique the four different narrations are. When I was watching the movie, I assumed that four different animators had come together to layer their films, but it turns out that they are all done by the same sad lady. It's really saying something when you consider that most animators pick a certain style and stick with it. It becomes their signature and you can almost tell who did the movie before you read the credits. But this director is actually brave enough to try her hand at 4 distinctive styles and she does them very well.
I think the genius in the movie comes from two concepts. The idea of having 3 actual Indians recount the story (as best they can) brings a very comfortable feel to the movie. They aren't always sure of the details and sometimes even argue about what really happened, but it gives you the feeling that you are sitting around the dinner table with friends, drinking good wine, and listening to a great story. The other cool concept is having one story line being completely driven by 1920s music. The 2D Vector animation used in this segment is probably the most advanced of all the segments, so pairing it with music from the 1920s gives it a really interesting feel that hooks you from the beginning.
My criticisms of the movie are only a few, but I think they hurt the movie a good bit. While the Vector animation and 1920s music is cool initially, it is grossly overused. The concept is intriguing at first, but there are like 10 to 12 songs (and they almost all sound alike) so it leads you to check your watch on occasion to see how much time is left in the movie. Then there is the director's "almost" autobiographical story line. I understand that this is supposed to explain how the director came upon the story and the desire to make the film, but it is really unnecessary. Its entirety probably only adds up to 5 minutes (so it is not very developed) and I found myself being taken out of the movie trying to figure out just how this particular segment was supposed to relate to the rest of the film. In my opinion, this story about how the director was dumped by her husband really just needs to be in the commentary or added as a bonus material segment because it really has no place in the actual film. Lastly, I wasn't a big fan of the plot itself. While some may see it as an example of true love and devotion, I just see it as an incredibly sexist story about how women are second class citizens and should be subservient to their husbands. But then again, I could probably say the same thing about much of the stories from Christian mythology. (Side note: If you were just offended by the fact that I referred to some Bible stories as mythology, you need to get out more . . . seriously.)
All in all though, I think I'm on the same page as Robyn (doesn't happen too often). I'm not putting this on my all time best list or anything, but it's definitely worth checking out. Any if you smoke the ganja, then get some friends together, light up a bowl, and have a good damn night.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Robyn's Response: Wristcutters
(Todd's review here)
2 Stars
All of the reasons Todd liked this movie are the same reasons that I didn't. I don't like Tom Waits. I think Shannyn Sossamon always plays the same character. And for me, the movie tried too hard. The metaphorical stuff shouldn't be so obvious, and make you think "Hmm, I bet this is supposed to symbolize something but I don't know what." Effective symbolism should be subtle and natural. The movie gets two stars soley for the redeeming Eugene Hutz, aka the lead singer from Gogol Bordello (also cameod as his backing band in the film). I love that crazy motherfucker - see Everything Is Illuminated if you want more of him.
2 Stars
All of the reasons Todd liked this movie are the same reasons that I didn't. I don't like Tom Waits. I think Shannyn Sossamon always plays the same character. And for me, the movie tried too hard. The metaphorical stuff shouldn't be so obvious, and make you think "Hmm, I bet this is supposed to symbolize something but I don't know what." Effective symbolism should be subtle and natural. The movie gets two stars soley for the redeeming Eugene Hutz, aka the lead singer from Gogol Bordello (also cameod as his backing band in the film). I love that crazy motherfucker - see Everything Is Illuminated if you want more of him.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Trainspotting
Trainspotting "A wild, freeform, Rabelaisian trip through the darkest recesses of Edinburgh low-life, focusing on Mark Renton and his attempt to give up his heroin habit, and how the latter affects his relationship with family and friends: Sean Connery wannabe Sick Boy, dimbulb Spud, psycho Begbie, 14-year-old girlfriend Diane, and clean-cut athlete Tommy, who's never touched drugs but can't help being curious about them..."
4 stars
"Good thing comes to those who wait." That's the concept that came to mind while I was watching Trainspotting. If you're not ready for this movie, it's going to knock you on your ass. The story hits the ground running and immediately throws you into a life of squalor and hardcore drug use. Luckily, there's a tongue-in-cheek feel to some of the scenes that keeps us from falling into a deep depression over the stark reality of what exactly is going on.
The first half hour is not for the faint of heart. There is a scene at "The Worst Toilet in Scotland" that is sure to make Grandma and Grandpa switch over to Wheel of Fortune, and another scene at the breakfast table that has equally shocking "fecal comedy". But in looking back, I think the movie was written this way on purpose to weed out casual movie goers who are not going to appreciate (and in this case deserve) the brilliance of the film.
At about the halfway point, you start to realize two things. The first is that this movie is visually astounding. The influence of "A Clockwork Orange" is evident both literally (in one bar scene) and figuratively with regard to the ingenious camera angles and usage of lighting and reflection. The second thing you realize is that EVERYONE in the cast really can act. You almost forget that you're watching a movie and let yourself slip into the notion that it's actually a documentary. The range of emotion goes from boyishly silly to disturbingly dark almost seamlessly, and the actors pull it off very well.
Now, it's not without its drawbacks. The "love story" between Renton and Diane is grossly underdeveloped and not necessarily even needed in the plot. And the fact that no one in the group ever stands up to the sociopathic, ultra-violent Begbie leaves some sense of incompleteness. But the film tends to stay true to itself and the cult-classic novel it is based off of. In the end, like in life, the characters haven't changed much. There is some progress made, most notably in Renton, but most everyone remains the same. It doesn't fall into the trap of Hollywood movies that take a protagonist from near-death-drug-addict all the way to picturesque-family-man in a mere 90 minutes.
It's real, almost too real. And you come to realize that this movie had to be made in the United Kingdom because a puritanical American production would have butchered it until it had the same emotional significance of Half Baked. In fact, two pivotal scenes were actually removed for the US release because they were deemed to graphic. So, make sure to get the director's cut and see why BAFTA has ranked this movie as the 10th most significant British movie of all time.
Robyn's response:
3 stars
I watched Trainspotting over two years ago, and there are certain images that are burned in my mind. The diarrhea and the suppositories, the filthy apartment that causes Tommy to die of toxoplasmosis (from the cat's litter box), Tommy's dead body, the baby's dead body, and the most scarring of all, the dead baby crawling on the ceiling.
On the other hand, I had to go to wikipedia to read a plot summary and refresh my memory. So does this mean it's a good film or a bad film? Am I just remembering the shocking scenes for their shock value? Or was it good cinematography? Did I block the story from my memory because it was so damn depressing? Or because the story just wasn't that memorable?
