If you saw Curse of the Black Pearl and Dead Man's Chest you will see what is suppose to be the conclusion to the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, At Worlds End . While most of us loved the first film in the series, Dead Man's Chest was a disappointment, so the opening of At Worlds End was greeted with a great deal of scrutiny. Maybe the third time is the charm, but this version of Pirates of the Caribbean (POC), left me breathless. And that's saying a lot when you consider that if you see this film from start to finish, you've invested 168 minutes of your life.
There is no doubt that even though Kira Knightly, Orlando Bloom, and Geoffrey Rush add mightily to this saga, it is Johnny Depp that literally steals the show. His facial makeup, flamboyantly overdone Pirate costume and devil may care attitude are so close to over the top that Depp has to walk a care full line so as not to let the character slide into the realm of the ridiculous. He succeeds with plenty to spare.
Playing Captain Jack Sparrow, Depp is the strong north pull in the compass that guides Kira Knightly's character as she is forced to choose between the man her father has chosen for her, the man she wants to love and the man that intrigues and tempts her. Captain Jack Sparrow is that charmingly naughty boy that, when he is around, fathers worry for the virtue of their wives as well as their daughters.
This fantasy tale pits the image of the pirates being the Robin Hood type good guys as they battle for independence and fairness against the corrupt British Government forces who seek to dominate the world in the name of the trading companies (As if any legitimate government would sell out to commercial interests, but than good fantasy is the process of suspending disbelief.)
I'm in awe of great bad guys and in many ways POC has some of the best. Tom Hollander as the sleaze and greasy but suave military brute Beckett, who plays Javer to Will Turner's, played by Orlando Bloom, Valjean in one of the trilogy sub plots, is good a bad guy as you'll find. And than there is the Bill Nighy as the tentacle faced Davey Jones.
The theme of this series, brought to a crescendo in the finale, is the constantly changing alliances among the principles, (You might want to keep score.) The special effects are grand and they do fit into the context of the story. The ending is well crafted and believable, while surprising. All in all, this final film in the trilogy is a good film on it's own and that might be the best test.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Monday, May 21, 2007
Away From Her, He Said
To tell a story you need to have compelling characters in a situation that somehow changes them or the world around them. If you were going to write a screenplay, you could do no better than to start with a short story written by Alice Munro, the acknowledged current champ in that category. Sarah Polley turned to Munro's "The Bear Came Over the Mountain".
This tender and wonderful tale is about a couple facing Fiona's, Grant's wife played by Julie Christie, decent into the hell of dementia. She is more aware and more rational about her condition than her husband, played by Gordon Pinsent. Fiona decides she must admit herself into a rest home that deals with dementia patients. (All patients with dementia do not necessarily have Alziemer's, but the treatment is essentially the same)
The closer the day when Fiona is going to leave, the more apprehension begins to build in Grant's mind. It accelerates quickly on the drive to the rest home. During the trip, Fiona reminds him that some memories she has are good and some she wishes she could get rid of. The memory she wants to forget is of an affair he had with one of his students. On the other hand, she is oddly happy about the fact that he did decide to stay with her. He has validated their relationship by resisting temptation to leave her for a younger woman.
After a required period of no contact for thirty days imposed by the rest home, Grant visits Fiona only to find that already she is confused about who he is. Not only is that fact difficult to process, but Fiona has taken responsibility for a fellow male patient Aubrey who has not only become dependent on her , but somewhat possessive.
Grant has befriended the head nurse who coaches him through his understanding of what is going on. But what the head nurse can not do is get rid of the nagging feeling that he has to compete for the affection and loyalty for his wife. It's only when Aubrey is taken out of the home by his wife and Fiona in her grief begins to slid further down the slippery slope that dementia can be, that Grant realizes that the price he might have to pay for any meaningful contact that he might have with his wife.
In short, even though Julie Christe is stunning, this film is not so much about the character that she plays, but the husband Grant. Grant begins with denial and ends up with a more complete understanding of Fiona's experience. Once again his decision is to stay with her or to leave.
(For more information on this condition see www.alz.org )
This tender and wonderful tale is about a couple facing Fiona's, Grant's wife played by Julie Christie, decent into the hell of dementia. She is more aware and more rational about her condition than her husband, played by Gordon Pinsent. Fiona decides she must admit herself into a rest home that deals with dementia patients. (All patients with dementia do not necessarily have Alziemer's, but the treatment is essentially the same)
The closer the day when Fiona is going to leave, the more apprehension begins to build in Grant's mind. It accelerates quickly on the drive to the rest home. During the trip, Fiona reminds him that some memories she has are good and some she wishes she could get rid of. The memory she wants to forget is of an affair he had with one of his students. On the other hand, she is oddly happy about the fact that he did decide to stay with her. He has validated their relationship by resisting temptation to leave her for a younger woman.
After a required period of no contact for thirty days imposed by the rest home, Grant visits Fiona only to find that already she is confused about who he is. Not only is that fact difficult to process, but Fiona has taken responsibility for a fellow male patient Aubrey who has not only become dependent on her , but somewhat possessive.
Grant has befriended the head nurse who coaches him through his understanding of what is going on. But what the head nurse can not do is get rid of the nagging feeling that he has to compete for the affection and loyalty for his wife. It's only when Aubrey is taken out of the home by his wife and Fiona in her grief begins to slid further down the slippery slope that dementia can be, that Grant realizes that the price he might have to pay for any meaningful contact that he might have with his wife.
In short, even though Julie Christe is stunning, this film is not so much about the character that she plays, but the husband Grant. Grant begins with denial and ends up with a more complete understanding of Fiona's experience. Once again his decision is to stay with her or to leave.
(For more information on this condition see www.alz.org )
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Waitress, He Said
Let me start by letting you know that I loved this film, but I can't tell you what I like best about this film, because f I did I give the ending away.
Director, Writer and Actress of this classic story, Adrienne Shelly has crafted a tale about a small town girl, Jenna, who is married to Earl. He is a insecure, jealous, controlling man with tendency to violence. Jenna, played wonderfully by Keri Russell, is a waitress-pastry cook at the local pie cafe. Normally we would assume that the answer to her problem would be to leave Earl, but she finds out that she is pregnant. Her workmates, Becky and Dawn, rally around her and we are given the possibility that she might escape Earl long enough to win a pie contest. With the money she would win she could solve her problem.
The second curve ball is when Jenna meets her new Doctor, Dr. Pomatter, portrayed by Nathan Fillion. He is new to town and taking over the practice of her regular physician. Dr. Jim Pomatter is instantly and obviously taken with Jenna.
The one thing that is apparent to us is that Jenna does not want to have this baby. She is given a book for expectant mothers and with the urging of her friend Dawn, she tells her story in a narrative letter to her unborn baby. We learn that she was taught to bake pies by a mother who she loved, she is married a guy who changed for the worst after they got married, the love is gone out their marriage and she has feelings for her Doctor.
The script for this is so tight and the story so compelling that I can't find any fault. Keri Russel is wonderful as the plucky pie maker, who has a pie recipe for every occasion and makes us all wish we could wrap our arms around her and hold her for twenty minutes for no reason except to make her feel safe.
(Sadly, Adrienne Shelly has passed away since this film was completed. I'm sure there was more enjoyable film experience in this woman's future that we've been denied.)
Director, Writer and Actress of this classic story, Adrienne Shelly has crafted a tale about a small town girl, Jenna, who is married to Earl. He is a insecure, jealous, controlling man with tendency to violence. Jenna, played wonderfully by Keri Russell, is a waitress-pastry cook at the local pie cafe. Normally we would assume that the answer to her problem would be to leave Earl, but she finds out that she is pregnant. Her workmates, Becky and Dawn, rally around her and we are given the possibility that she might escape Earl long enough to win a pie contest. With the money she would win she could solve her problem.
The second curve ball is when Jenna meets her new Doctor, Dr. Pomatter, portrayed by Nathan Fillion. He is new to town and taking over the practice of her regular physician. Dr. Jim Pomatter is instantly and obviously taken with Jenna.
The one thing that is apparent to us is that Jenna does not want to have this baby. She is given a book for expectant mothers and with the urging of her friend Dawn, she tells her story in a narrative letter to her unborn baby. We learn that she was taught to bake pies by a mother who she loved, she is married a guy who changed for the worst after they got married, the love is gone out their marriage and she has feelings for her Doctor.
The script for this is so tight and the story so compelling that I can't find any fault. Keri Russel is wonderful as the plucky pie maker, who has a pie recipe for every occasion and makes us all wish we could wrap our arms around her and hold her for twenty minutes for no reason except to make her feel safe.
(Sadly, Adrienne Shelly has passed away since this film was completed. I'm sure there was more enjoyable film experience in this woman's future that we've been denied.)
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Zwartboek (Black Book), He Said
In Black Book, director, writer Paul Verhoeven paints a picture of the the crumbling control of the Nazi's in 1945 Holland. Our heroine, Rachael is separated from her family and living with a sympathetic Christian family. The Nazi's discover her and her benefactors. But before they can strike Rachael and her friend take the offer of a resistance fighter and attempt an escape. The escape offer is a trap. The boat full of wealthy Jewish families and their valuables is attacked. The passengers are mercilessly gunned down and their belongings are looted. Only Rachael escapes.
Here in starts a journey of unbelievable violence, intrigue and romance. If I were to describe our heroine in this Dutch German film as plucky it wouldn't quiet carry the day. Instead, if you will, visualize Gidgit played by Angelina Jolie. Rachael is saved by the real resistance fighters. Since Rachael, played by Carice van Houton, is a name that is Jewish in origin, she changes her name to Ellis. She serves faithfully at lower levels of the resistance movement and when she is asked to assume a more dangerous role, she accepts eagerly.
Being raised in a time when duplicity, particularly for a Jew, was a life saving skill, Ellis excels at the subterfuge and diversion necessary to succeed at this kind of war craft. Soon she is put in a position of getting inside the SS headquarters. In a move which might possibly save the lives of her captured colleagues, her task is to bed and therefore compromise, the head of the SS, Luwig Muntze, portrayed by Sabastian Koch. They bed, but in the process they fall in love.
He is aware, almost from the beginning, that she is not what she represents herself to be, but his loneliness and his fascination with her overrules his judgement. While this will lead to his downfall, it is also emblematic of the crumbling of the Nazi resolve at his point in the war. Muntz is aware that the end, for the Germans, is near and that continuing slaughter is senseless and self defeating when he considers the aftermath.
In a way these issues with the writer batting us back and forth like a tennis ball on the matter of who is loyal to their respective organizations and who is a traitor is the driving the story. However, what we discover as the story progresses is that given the situation anybody can behave in a manner that they don't want to visit in their saner moments. For it is when the Nazis turned tail, that the resistance doesn't exactly shine in their moment of victory. Their retaliation and vengeance smacked of the very tactics and practices of their enemy.
Clearly, this film demonstrates the point that has been made many times. The Nazis lost the war primarily because of their genocidal activities. Regardless of the obvious wrong of their super race theory, the simple logistics of carrying out the attempt to eliminate the Jews cost them manpower, resources and assets, all of which detracted from their occupation efforts. This film posses a strong story line about the resistance, the characters involved, their issues and beliefs. On the other side, we see the perversity, criminality and duplicity of the failing German administration.
All in all this is a good film. The script is solid and the story is compelling. The acting is more than competent and the scenes are set brilliantly. If there is a failing, it is in execution of this script. I felt at times that Verhoeven went over the top. Our "plucky" heroine is subjected to every kind of degradation possible short of death. This led me to a kind of "oh for crying out loud, enough already" attitude when, near the end of the film, she is doused with the refuse from the latrines in the prison camp.
In this effort to set up the arc of the story, Verhoeven opens with Rachael in a Kibbutz in Israel. When he closes she is walking back into the barbed wire compound of her kibbutz as the troops protecting the encampment are rallying to an upcoming attack. This leaves us with the strong message that nothing has changed in her life and maybe that is the intended assumption. We want avoid thinking of the capabilities of the dark side of man and we almost always refuse to learn from our history.
Here in starts a journey of unbelievable violence, intrigue and romance. If I were to describe our heroine in this Dutch German film as plucky it wouldn't quiet carry the day. Instead, if you will, visualize Gidgit played by Angelina Jolie. Rachael is saved by the real resistance fighters. Since Rachael, played by Carice van Houton, is a name that is Jewish in origin, she changes her name to Ellis. She serves faithfully at lower levels of the resistance movement and when she is asked to assume a more dangerous role, she accepts eagerly.
Being raised in a time when duplicity, particularly for a Jew, was a life saving skill, Ellis excels at the subterfuge and diversion necessary to succeed at this kind of war craft. Soon she is put in a position of getting inside the SS headquarters. In a move which might possibly save the lives of her captured colleagues, her task is to bed and therefore compromise, the head of the SS, Luwig Muntze, portrayed by Sabastian Koch. They bed, but in the process they fall in love.
He is aware, almost from the beginning, that she is not what she represents herself to be, but his loneliness and his fascination with her overrules his judgement. While this will lead to his downfall, it is also emblematic of the crumbling of the Nazi resolve at his point in the war. Muntz is aware that the end, for the Germans, is near and that continuing slaughter is senseless and self defeating when he considers the aftermath.
In a way these issues with the writer batting us back and forth like a tennis ball on the matter of who is loyal to their respective organizations and who is a traitor is the driving the story. However, what we discover as the story progresses is that given the situation anybody can behave in a manner that they don't want to visit in their saner moments. For it is when the Nazis turned tail, that the resistance doesn't exactly shine in their moment of victory. Their retaliation and vengeance smacked of the very tactics and practices of their enemy.
Clearly, this film demonstrates the point that has been made many times. The Nazis lost the war primarily because of their genocidal activities. Regardless of the obvious wrong of their super race theory, the simple logistics of carrying out the attempt to eliminate the Jews cost them manpower, resources and assets, all of which detracted from their occupation efforts. This film posses a strong story line about the resistance, the characters involved, their issues and beliefs. On the other side, we see the perversity, criminality and duplicity of the failing German administration.
All in all this is a good film. The script is solid and the story is compelling. The acting is more than competent and the scenes are set brilliantly. If there is a failing, it is in execution of this script. I felt at times that Verhoeven went over the top. Our "plucky" heroine is subjected to every kind of degradation possible short of death. This led me to a kind of "oh for crying out loud, enough already" attitude when, near the end of the film, she is doused with the refuse from the latrines in the prison camp.
In this effort to set up the arc of the story, Verhoeven opens with Rachael in a Kibbutz in Israel. When he closes she is walking back into the barbed wire compound of her kibbutz as the troops protecting the encampment are rallying to an upcoming attack. This leaves us with the strong message that nothing has changed in her life and maybe that is the intended assumption. We want avoid thinking of the capabilities of the dark side of man and we almost always refuse to learn from our history.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Year of the Dog, He Said
There are laughs in this film, but most of the time you have to wipe away the tears or try to control your angst. Mike White, writer and director of this film, introduces us to Peggy, played by Molly Shannon,who is perfectly cast and performs beautifully. Peggy is a world class old maid, who is dedicated to her little dog Pencil, even as she functions as good employee and maiden Aunt to brothers kids.
Her crises begins when her dog gets out of the house, gets into some unknown poison and eventually dies. This event kicks her out of the normal straight lane of her life. She is convinced by a activist to adopt a large dog that has a history of abuse. The animal is totally inappropriate for her, but she takes it in order to save it. The activist, Newt, played by Peter Sarsgaard, offers to help her train the dog. This brings them into regular and intimate contact. Their relationship seems to be moving toward romance when we find out that Newt is neither homo sexual nor hetero sexual, but celibate
throat. In a fit remorse, she adopts Peggy's disappointment sends her over the edge. Her behaviour is marked by taking up the cause of all animals. She had become a Vegan to impress Newt. Now she steals money from her boss to donate to animal rights causes. She tries to shove stray dogs down every one's throat in order to spare the dogs life. In a fit of depression, she adopts a herd of dogs that she can't possibly take care of. In addition, she begins to imagine her neighbor poisoned her dog, Pencil, either by accident, but possibly on purpose.
While much of this is humorous, Molly Shannon did far to good of a job convincing me that this women is pathetic and lost in life. She seems to want a normal life with a husband and kids, but her insecurity is manifest in her obsession with animals. if this is humor it's black humor.
The funniest scenes to me are her visits to her brother's house. she always brings a gift which is subtly but firmly deemed suspect, by his wife, played by Laura Dern. The neurotic mom always has a question as to the intellectual value or intrinsic danger Molly's gifts present.
My biggest problem with this film, sweet as it might be, is that there is no character arc. Molly is a insecure women who invests her love and attention on animals because she is afraid of human relationships. In the end she is just a more outgoing, maybe courageous, form of the same thing.
My advise is to rent it. it's worth a look , but not at eights dollars
Her crises begins when her dog gets out of the house, gets into some unknown poison and eventually dies. This event kicks her out of the normal straight lane of her life. She is convinced by a activist to adopt a large dog that has a history of abuse. The animal is totally inappropriate for her, but she takes it in order to save it. The activist, Newt, played by Peter Sarsgaard, offers to help her train the dog. This brings them into regular and intimate contact. Their relationship seems to be moving toward romance when we find out that Newt is neither homo sexual nor hetero sexual, but celibate
throat. In a fit remorse, she adopts Peggy's disappointment sends her over the edge. Her behaviour is marked by taking up the cause of all animals. She had become a Vegan to impress Newt. Now she steals money from her boss to donate to animal rights causes. She tries to shove stray dogs down every one's throat in order to spare the dogs life. In a fit of depression, she adopts a herd of dogs that she can't possibly take care of. In addition, she begins to imagine her neighbor poisoned her dog, Pencil, either by accident, but possibly on purpose.
While much of this is humorous, Molly Shannon did far to good of a job convincing me that this women is pathetic and lost in life. She seems to want a normal life with a husband and kids, but her insecurity is manifest in her obsession with animals. if this is humor it's black humor.
The funniest scenes to me are her visits to her brother's house. she always brings a gift which is subtly but firmly deemed suspect, by his wife, played by Laura Dern. The neurotic mom always has a question as to the intellectual value or intrinsic danger Molly's gifts present.
My biggest problem with this film, sweet as it might be, is that there is no character arc. Molly is a insecure women who invests her love and attention on animals because she is afraid of human relationships. In the end she is just a more outgoing, maybe courageous, form of the same thing.
My advise is to rent it. it's worth a look , but not at eights dollars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)