I'm going to need some time to fully digest this film, and probably a second viewing, but my gut opinion is that Little Children was amazing. The film is a sharp commentary on suburban life and our modern culture. Think of it as Desperate Housewives if Desperate Housewives were literate, intelligent, well-directed, and well-acted.
My rough interpretation at this point is about how those in the suburbs have formed a society of little children. Certainly the characters in the film are. They act on their insticts, without thinking through the ramifications of their actions. Its similar to how Kate Winslet's daughter, Lucy, refuses to ride in the car seat. She has no thought of the danger, only that restricting herself is uncomfortable. In this way, all four of the most important characters of the film (Sarah, Brad, Larry, and Ronald) cause severe damage to themselves and others because they are little children, thinking only of themselves and what they want. I see Little Children as a coming of age movie about a bunch of 30 and 40 year olds.
However, the film can be enjoyed on a completely different level, as an acting extravaganza. Kate Winslet, who is my favorite actor working right now, invests Sarah with a huge sense of melancholy and regret. It is a deep and fulfilling performance. Jackie Earle Haley, as Ronald, has the toughest job in the film, he has to make you feel sympathy for a child molester. Haley succeeds by subtly underplaying Ronald, and infusing him with a complex cocktail of emotions ranging from guilt to anger to sorrow. Finally, Patrick Wilson hasn't gotten a lot of notice for his performance, but it was subtle and charming.
The film may not be perfect. At times the narration overexplains things we can see clearly and the Madame Bovary scene overlabors its point. However, none of that takes away from the fact that Todd Field has made a worthy successor to In the Bedroom and a film that I will likely be going over in my mind for a while.
A-
Showing posts with label 2006. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2006. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
Sunday, January 7, 2007
Children of Men
2006 managed to produce two fantastic dystopian science fictions. First came V For Vendetta, an excellent action movie and a sharp critique of our current political climate. And then, as the year came to an end, we got another film with an excellent look into a dark future. However, what makes Children of Men different from V For Vendetta is Alfonso Cuaron's brilliant vision, as well as how personal his film is.
Children of Men takes place twenty years in the future, when humanity is no longer able to reproduce. Its a fantastic idea, and while it may seem a little far-fetched, the film makes it completely believable. The result of this is that we have essentially fallen apart as a race. Horrible things have happened all over the world, leaving Britain as the sole place where human society still exists. However, it doesn't matter. From the second the film starts, you can feel the hopelessness of every person living in the world. Clive Owen's Theo exemplifies this hopelessness. Theo has personally lost a child to the flu right before the infertility struck. And you can see in Owen's eyes how meaningless he finds everything.
Out of that meaninglessness comes hope, in the form of Kee, who has gotten pregnant. Unlike V, Theo is not fighting to bring down England's tyranical government (and the government of Children of Men is definitely tyrannical), he is fighting for hope. While the entire race may hinge on whether he can get Kee out of the country, he also can't let anybody know what he is doing, if he has any chance of his mission succeeding. As a result, the story is much more personal than V For Vendetta.
Director Alfonso Cuaron shoots the film with long, handheld takes, adding to the realism of the film, and drawing us closer to Theo. He crafts a picture of the future than seems frighteningly plausible. Ultimately the film succeeds because it is grounded in the personal. In that way, it joins the pantheon of great science fiction, and I highly recommend it.
A-
Children of Men takes place twenty years in the future, when humanity is no longer able to reproduce. Its a fantastic idea, and while it may seem a little far-fetched, the film makes it completely believable. The result of this is that we have essentially fallen apart as a race. Horrible things have happened all over the world, leaving Britain as the sole place where human society still exists. However, it doesn't matter. From the second the film starts, you can feel the hopelessness of every person living in the world. Clive Owen's Theo exemplifies this hopelessness. Theo has personally lost a child to the flu right before the infertility struck. And you can see in Owen's eyes how meaningless he finds everything.
Out of that meaninglessness comes hope, in the form of Kee, who has gotten pregnant. Unlike V, Theo is not fighting to bring down England's tyranical government (and the government of Children of Men is definitely tyrannical), he is fighting for hope. While the entire race may hinge on whether he can get Kee out of the country, he also can't let anybody know what he is doing, if he has any chance of his mission succeeding. As a result, the story is much more personal than V For Vendetta.
Director Alfonso Cuaron shoots the film with long, handheld takes, adding to the realism of the film, and drawing us closer to Theo. He crafts a picture of the future than seems frighteningly plausible. Ultimately the film succeeds because it is grounded in the personal. In that way, it joins the pantheon of great science fiction, and I highly recommend it.
A-
The Holiday
It might be bold to admit to watching this movie with only my third post, but I have to be honest.
There really isn't that much to say. Winslet and Black were entertaining, Diaz and Law were not and ultimately it was just slightly better than the average romantic comedy.
C-
There really isn't that much to say. Winslet and Black were entertaining, Diaz and Law were not and ultimately it was just slightly better than the average romantic comedy.
C-
Dreamgirls
So, I begin with the first film I saw in 2007, Dreamgirls.
The musical is a tricky storytelling medium to bring to film. Most musicals, especially recently, have failed to garner critical success, commercial success, or, in most cases, both. In my opinion, the main reason for this is that most musicals tend to be loaded with songs instead of focusing on the story and the characters. Music is an excellent way of emoting and showing feeling in an entertaining way, but it doesn't mean anything if there aren't characters we can invest in, or a story that is compelling. For example, think about action movies. The reason why Casino Royale worked, while Die Another Day didn't was because Casino Royale used action sequences to suppliment character and plot development. The movie is all about Bond and Vesper and the story. Now think about Die Another Day and try to remember the plot or anything interesting about the characters. Its the same way with musicals, they can be good, but only if the characters and story are there.
Which brings me to Dreamgirls, a film I was very excited to see, but that didn't live up to my hopes because it was a series of songs without a developing plot or characters to tie them together. Ostensibly, the film is about the Dreams, a Motown-style girl group who hit it big, but fall apart when one of them takes over. However, director Bill Condon is not particularly interested in telling that story. Instead, we get a series of extremely well-shot and well-performed songs, but no substance behind them.
The film begins entertainingly enough, focusing mainly on James Early (Eddie Murphy) and Effie White (Jennifer Hudson). Murphy gives the film's best performance, capturing both Early's charisma and manic nature early in the film, while also doing a great job of showing him as tired and desperate later. Hudson also does a great job with her character, and she has the film's emotional highlight, "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going"
The problem is that this highlight comes way too early, half-way through the film, leaving nowhere to go but down. After that the song the film rather abruptly shifts focus to Jamie Foxx's cardboard character (he's the evil, controlling manager!) and Beyonce Knowles' bland diva. By moving away from the two most interesting and well-acted characters to two extremely bland ones, Condon severely damaged the film and the result is that the second half is a tedious presentation of songs that feels more like the variety show that Foxx's character puts on than an actual movie. Additionally, because the film ditches Hudson so early, her character ends up feeling underdeveloped. The film was never going to recover from "And I'm Telling You," but it didn't have to curl up and die after it.
In the end, I thought Dreamgirls contained a few songs and excellent performances from Murphy and Hudson , but the second half was just too painful for me to fully recommed this movie.
C+
The musical is a tricky storytelling medium to bring to film. Most musicals, especially recently, have failed to garner critical success, commercial success, or, in most cases, both. In my opinion, the main reason for this is that most musicals tend to be loaded with songs instead of focusing on the story and the characters. Music is an excellent way of emoting and showing feeling in an entertaining way, but it doesn't mean anything if there aren't characters we can invest in, or a story that is compelling. For example, think about action movies. The reason why Casino Royale worked, while Die Another Day didn't was because Casino Royale used action sequences to suppliment character and plot development. The movie is all about Bond and Vesper and the story. Now think about Die Another Day and try to remember the plot or anything interesting about the characters. Its the same way with musicals, they can be good, but only if the characters and story are there.
Which brings me to Dreamgirls, a film I was very excited to see, but that didn't live up to my hopes because it was a series of songs without a developing plot or characters to tie them together. Ostensibly, the film is about the Dreams, a Motown-style girl group who hit it big, but fall apart when one of them takes over. However, director Bill Condon is not particularly interested in telling that story. Instead, we get a series of extremely well-shot and well-performed songs, but no substance behind them.
The film begins entertainingly enough, focusing mainly on James Early (Eddie Murphy) and Effie White (Jennifer Hudson). Murphy gives the film's best performance, capturing both Early's charisma and manic nature early in the film, while also doing a great job of showing him as tired and desperate later. Hudson also does a great job with her character, and she has the film's emotional highlight, "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going"
The problem is that this highlight comes way too early, half-way through the film, leaving nowhere to go but down. After that the song the film rather abruptly shifts focus to Jamie Foxx's cardboard character (he's the evil, controlling manager!) and Beyonce Knowles' bland diva. By moving away from the two most interesting and well-acted characters to two extremely bland ones, Condon severely damaged the film and the result is that the second half is a tedious presentation of songs that feels more like the variety show that Foxx's character puts on than an actual movie. Additionally, because the film ditches Hudson so early, her character ends up feeling underdeveloped. The film was never going to recover from "And I'm Telling You," but it didn't have to curl up and die after it.
In the end, I thought Dreamgirls contained a few songs and excellent performances from Murphy and Hudson , but the second half was just too painful for me to fully recommed this movie.
C+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)