If you're worried that because JoBeth Williams and Meg Ryan are featured in this tale of personal discovery that it's going to degenerate into some sappy romantic comedy, take heart. In this film Ryan portrays, Sarah Hardwicke, a mother of two girls. She discovers that she has breast cancer. She already knows that she has a husband who cheats on her, a teenage daughter who hates her for no apparent reason and that her life is beginning to add up to nothing.
Into this quiet Michigan town arrives young Carter Webb, played by Adam Brody. Carter has been devastated by the break up of his long relationship with a young Hollywood starlet and his failure to write the screenplay he has long wanted to write. He moves into the house across the street from Sarah to take care of his Grandmother, played brilliantly by Olympia Dukakis. Grandma thinks she's dying and Carter in a vain attempt to run from all of his perceived problems in Los Angeles, volunteers to take care of her.
When Josh meets Sarah it's the innocent but tried and true method of dog leads girl to man. They end up getting to know each other by walking the Hardwicke family dog. Eventually, they share their stories with each other and form an almost conspiritol bond of caring and concern.
Sarah, attempting to deny her less than chaste feelings for Carter tries to foist him off on her oldest daughter, Lucy, played by Kristen Stewart. Lucy, in her turn, falls for Carters innocent charm and confides in him whats going on in the family, from her perspective.
Sarah's cancer treatments and Carter's invlovement with Lucy bring many of the issues to the surface. His grandmothers death forces events to a climax. What we learn is that living a life of denial and regret brings us nothing by disappointment and grief. By facing the life we have and living it to it's fullest is far better than just taking the punches. Josh, Sarah, and Lucy all find their next direction in lives not fully lived and benefitted from loving and caring for each other.
When I sat down to watch this film the first couple of scenes gave me that creepy feeling that I was going to have to sit through one of those contrived and silly romantic comedies that mock and redicule the possability of the older woman and the younger man falling in love. I was fooled. This film is much more dramatic and worthwile than that scenario would allow. It was refreshing to see the young talent of Stewart and Brody blooming and the revival of Meg Ryan from a role of depth and charcter with larger scope than some of her recent roles.
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Monday, April 16, 2007
Perfect Stranger, He Said
Don't blame Halle Berry if you hear that this movie fails on so many levels that it's a wonder it ever got shown. Well, come to think of it you might blame Halle for not watching the company she keeps since she won her Oscar for "Monsters Ball". It's as if she was trying to show us that she can out Bruce Willis Bruce Willis in attempting to waste more talent in a lifetime by making as many big budget action thriller nonsense as she can. Did I mention Bruce Willis was in this film also?
Actually for what they were used for you could have put up cardboard cutouts of them and had the co-stars and extras work around them. The script for this vehicle was lacking in many area's but good dialogue stood out as the most glaring gap in good film making. The story of a the disrespected top reporter who turns a personal tragedy into a crusade for justice is just so thin and unbelievable that even the stunning Miss Berry and the witty Mr. Willis can't get us to suspend disbelief long enough to get into the story.
The who dun it is contrived, but I will admit you will not see the last twist coming. Mostly the mystery ending is so well hidden because it isn't at all foreshadowed and is not believable in any sense.
She and I agree that "Eye's Wide Shut" is probably the worst film we ever saw. This one isn't that bad, however I wouldn't recommend anyone going to see this film.
(There is a she as in the "she said" title of this blog and she will write pretty soon, I'm sure.)
Actually for what they were used for you could have put up cardboard cutouts of them and had the co-stars and extras work around them. The script for this vehicle was lacking in many area's but good dialogue stood out as the most glaring gap in good film making. The story of a the disrespected top reporter who turns a personal tragedy into a crusade for justice is just so thin and unbelievable that even the stunning Miss Berry and the witty Mr. Willis can't get us to suspend disbelief long enough to get into the story.
The who dun it is contrived, but I will admit you will not see the last twist coming. Mostly the mystery ending is so well hidden because it isn't at all foreshadowed and is not believable in any sense.
She and I agree that "Eye's Wide Shut" is probably the worst film we ever saw. This one isn't that bad, however I wouldn't recommend anyone going to see this film.
(There is a she as in the "she said" title of this blog and she will write pretty soon, I'm sure.)
Sunday, April 8, 2007
The Hoax, He said
For Lassie Hallstrom to take on the film "The Hoax", the allure had to be wrapped in the promise of a doing a period film. Hallstrom, who does these things very well, captures the mood and feel of the early 1970's so well that you could imagine you were watching Alfred Molina and Richard Gere made up to look older in a film that was actually shot in 1972.
The story is simple and the outcome is remembered by most of us that lived through it at the time. It's a time when Life magazine was one of the most powerful news and information outlets. It was the time when the post Nixon era was birthing itself behind the scenes as plans to burglarize the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel were formulating. It was a time when free love and drugs were more a part of the main stream culture than they had been, but liquor and cigarettes were still the drug of choice.
Clifford Irving, portrayed by Richard Gere, is a talented but struggling writer with many problems. His marriage is in danger because his wife discovered he was having an affair. His career is not going well because his last book was rejected and his previous book did not sell well.
In total desperation, he tells his editor that he has the exclusive rights to interview and write the biography of the reclusive industrialist and millionaire eccentric, Howard Hughes. He and his research assistant, played brilliantly by Alfred Molina, create the aura of authenticity that sways a sceptical but greedy editorial and publishing staff into giving Irving over a million dollars for the right to publish the book. Irving is counting on Hughes staying silent on the subterfuge because he has litigation problems with his TWA stockholders, A public appearance to refute Clifford's claim would be a disaster for the industrial wizard.
At this point in the story, we are led to believe, Irving has begun lying to his wife in a desperate attempt to save his marriage and that lying to his editors to save his career is the next step in inevitable journey to self destruction. However, my guess is that Irving was always cutting corners. He simply was to good a liar to be a recent practitioner.
The conflict is built around greed. First there is Irving's greed and need for money and success. But there is also the greed of the publishers in their suspension of disbelief in order to capitalize on the public's fascination with Howard Hughes.
Where this film get off track is when we see scenes that happen only in the mind of Clifford Irving. We are led to believe that the pressure of all of this deception has Irving imagining visits by CA types and involvement with Hughes operatives that eventually lead to his downfall. We are led to believe his exposure and eventual downfall is not because he has perpetrated and enormous fraud, hoax is to kind of a word, but because Howard Hughes is through using him in order to get back at ... . Well, I let you find that out if you bother to see this film.
Hallstrom, the director, got the sense of place he needed to portray this interesting side note to history. Gere and Molina's performances were spot on and wonderful to experience. But the script got very mushy toward the end. It was as if the truth of this story wasn't enough and had to be embellished, when in reality it didn't.
The story is simple and the outcome is remembered by most of us that lived through it at the time. It's a time when Life magazine was one of the most powerful news and information outlets. It was the time when the post Nixon era was birthing itself behind the scenes as plans to burglarize the Democratic headquarters at the Watergate Hotel were formulating. It was a time when free love and drugs were more a part of the main stream culture than they had been, but liquor and cigarettes were still the drug of choice.
Clifford Irving, portrayed by Richard Gere, is a talented but struggling writer with many problems. His marriage is in danger because his wife discovered he was having an affair. His career is not going well because his last book was rejected and his previous book did not sell well.
In total desperation, he tells his editor that he has the exclusive rights to interview and write the biography of the reclusive industrialist and millionaire eccentric, Howard Hughes. He and his research assistant, played brilliantly by Alfred Molina, create the aura of authenticity that sways a sceptical but greedy editorial and publishing staff into giving Irving over a million dollars for the right to publish the book. Irving is counting on Hughes staying silent on the subterfuge because he has litigation problems with his TWA stockholders, A public appearance to refute Clifford's claim would be a disaster for the industrial wizard.
At this point in the story, we are led to believe, Irving has begun lying to his wife in a desperate attempt to save his marriage and that lying to his editors to save his career is the next step in inevitable journey to self destruction. However, my guess is that Irving was always cutting corners. He simply was to good a liar to be a recent practitioner.
The conflict is built around greed. First there is Irving's greed and need for money and success. But there is also the greed of the publishers in their suspension of disbelief in order to capitalize on the public's fascination with Howard Hughes.
Where this film get off track is when we see scenes that happen only in the mind of Clifford Irving. We are led to believe that the pressure of all of this deception has Irving imagining visits by CA types and involvement with Hughes operatives that eventually lead to his downfall. We are led to believe his exposure and eventual downfall is not because he has perpetrated and enormous fraud, hoax is to kind of a word, but because Howard Hughes is through using him in order to get back at ... . Well, I let you find that out if you bother to see this film.
Hallstrom, the director, got the sense of place he needed to portray this interesting side note to history. Gere and Molina's performances were spot on and wonderful to experience. But the script got very mushy toward the end. It was as if the truth of this story wasn't enough and had to be embellished, when in reality it didn't.
Monday, April 2, 2007
The Namesake, He Said
What is unusual about this coming of age tale is that it is the saga of three people coming of age. We are introduced to a young Ashoke Ganguli, who has a "road to Damascus" revelation on a annual train trip to visit his grandfather. A fellow passenger tries to tell the young man to see the world, when his inclination is to stay in India. The train has an accident and our young friend barely survives. The next time we see him, he has returned to India from his teaching position in the United States to meet the wife his parents have chosen for him.
Our second traveler on the road to life change is Ashoke's bride to be, Ashima. This young women takes a chance on a the young man she has meet only once, because, we are led to believe, because she liked the feeling of trying on his shoes. She took a walk in his shoes on the sly just before she met him. In addition to the obvious symbolism of this gesture, she likes the idea of going on an adventure in America.
Their successful transplantation into American society and marriage leads to the introduction of the third member of the story, their son Gogol. They name their son Gogol because his father had been reading the work of Nicoly Gogol when he was involved in the train accident.
The interwoven tale is full of the cliches of life. Ashima's difficulty in making the transition from Indian society to America, Ashoke's problems in dealing with his wife's insecurity, and Gogol's typical youth rebellion issues including the racial pressures. But aside from facing the typical challenges of life, this trio has to deal with being in a society that does not always understand nor does it want to understand the traditions and differences of Indian Americans
While the story tends to focus on Gogol, it shows the us changes taking place in all of their lives. This a wonderful saga of a family in American and it could be, with a change in the customs and mores, the story of almost any immigrant family that raises their children in a foreign country.
In one scene, Gogol is a guest at a party for his Anglo girl friend. A guest is asking him questions about India. While it is humorous because, as he points out, he was born in New Jersey, it's also interesting that he has no answers to her questions, because he doesn't know much about his father and mother's country.
I loved this film. It was thoughtfully and graciously filmed, yet didn't pull back from the pain that life can bring all of us. It exposed us to two cultures that most of us know nothing about, those being India and Indians living in America. The story takes soft twists and turns, but eventually leads us to the place where the lessons have been leaned and we see the future and it is good.
Our second traveler on the road to life change is Ashoke's bride to be, Ashima. This young women takes a chance on a the young man she has meet only once, because, we are led to believe, because she liked the feeling of trying on his shoes. She took a walk in his shoes on the sly just before she met him. In addition to the obvious symbolism of this gesture, she likes the idea of going on an adventure in America.
Their successful transplantation into American society and marriage leads to the introduction of the third member of the story, their son Gogol. They name their son Gogol because his father had been reading the work of Nicoly Gogol when he was involved in the train accident.
The interwoven tale is full of the cliches of life. Ashima's difficulty in making the transition from Indian society to America, Ashoke's problems in dealing with his wife's insecurity, and Gogol's typical youth rebellion issues including the racial pressures. But aside from facing the typical challenges of life, this trio has to deal with being in a society that does not always understand nor does it want to understand the traditions and differences of Indian Americans
While the story tends to focus on Gogol, it shows the us changes taking place in all of their lives. This a wonderful saga of a family in American and it could be, with a change in the customs and mores, the story of almost any immigrant family that raises their children in a foreign country.
In one scene, Gogol is a guest at a party for his Anglo girl friend. A guest is asking him questions about India. While it is humorous because, as he points out, he was born in New Jersey, it's also interesting that he has no answers to her questions, because he doesn't know much about his father and mother's country.
I loved this film. It was thoughtfully and graciously filmed, yet didn't pull back from the pain that life can bring all of us. It exposed us to two cultures that most of us know nothing about, those being India and Indians living in America. The story takes soft twists and turns, but eventually leads us to the place where the lessons have been leaned and we see the future and it is good.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
300, He Said
This film depicts the world at the dawn of democracy, although this may not be apparent to the slaves. We begin with Leonidas. This child of Sparta will be raised to be a warrior king. His rite of passage begins in early as he is taught discipline, fighting skills and allegiance to Sparta. His initiation is to be placed in the wilderness to survive on his wits and guile. His encounter with a mythical wolf insures his acceptance and enables him to become King of Sparta.
The Spartan culture of this time (480 BC) allows any citizen to speak on any issue and be heard. Leonidas is well respected and has only one real rival Theron a politician, not a warrior, who has amassed his power through his schemes and arrangements.
So we have the basis for the conflict, that will not be settled in a battle on the Plains of Thermopylae, which is so richly depicted in the greater part of this film, but in the senate. (I can't avoid, as I am sure others will, the comparison to today's dialogue over Iraq.)
The real conflict is staged when King Leonidas against the wishes of his senate and of the mystic's leads a group of three hundred of the best Spartan warriors to stop Xerxes and his hordes from invading and conquering Greece.
In fact,and not unlike our foray into Iraq, this is a suicide mission. The Spartans are badly out numbered. Outside of a strategic advantage, the Spartans occupy a pass which the enemy must take from them before they have access to Greece, there is no way the Spartans are going to win this battle. While they seem to be doing the impossible and holding off the invaders, they are betrayed by a disgruntled Greek who leads the enemy to a secret pass that enables the enemy to surround the 300.
Back in Sparta, Leonidas's rival,Theron, is undermining what little support the King has with his countrymen. Queen Gorgo, Leonida's wife, in a futile attempt to solicit Theron's support submits to his advances and allows him to have sex with her in exchange for his support to rally the citizens and send the rest of the army to assist Leonidas.
Her speech to the Senate is compelling and thoughtful. It sounds like a plea that Condoleezza Rice might make to justify our invasion of Iraq, including the need for more troops, but Theron betrays her. Why and what results I will it you find out if you choose to see this movie.
I would normally put this film in the "rent it" category for content and craft, but the visual presentation is going to be enjoyed so much more on the big screen. This adaptation of a graphic novel is done in and interesting way and for those curious about the direction of new commercial films, this would make a good example
The Spartan culture of this time (480 BC) allows any citizen to speak on any issue and be heard. Leonidas is well respected and has only one real rival Theron a politician, not a warrior, who has amassed his power through his schemes and arrangements.
So we have the basis for the conflict, that will not be settled in a battle on the Plains of Thermopylae, which is so richly depicted in the greater part of this film, but in the senate. (I can't avoid, as I am sure others will, the comparison to today's dialogue over Iraq.)
The real conflict is staged when King Leonidas against the wishes of his senate and of the mystic's leads a group of three hundred of the best Spartan warriors to stop Xerxes and his hordes from invading and conquering Greece.
In fact,and not unlike our foray into Iraq, this is a suicide mission. The Spartans are badly out numbered. Outside of a strategic advantage, the Spartans occupy a pass which the enemy must take from them before they have access to Greece, there is no way the Spartans are going to win this battle. While they seem to be doing the impossible and holding off the invaders, they are betrayed by a disgruntled Greek who leads the enemy to a secret pass that enables the enemy to surround the 300.
Back in Sparta, Leonidas's rival,Theron, is undermining what little support the King has with his countrymen. Queen Gorgo, Leonida's wife, in a futile attempt to solicit Theron's support submits to his advances and allows him to have sex with her in exchange for his support to rally the citizens and send the rest of the army to assist Leonidas.
Her speech to the Senate is compelling and thoughtful. It sounds like a plea that Condoleezza Rice might make to justify our invasion of Iraq, including the need for more troops, but Theron betrays her. Why and what results I will it you find out if you choose to see this movie.
I would normally put this film in the "rent it" category for content and craft, but the visual presentation is going to be enjoyed so much more on the big screen. This adaptation of a graphic novel is done in and interesting way and for those curious about the direction of new commercial films, this would make a good example
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Shooter, He Said
I know that if "she" ever decides to write this column that she and I will agree on one thing. this film is as commercial as they come and not all that well done. We should have known it was going to be one of those brainless action adventure films when we saw the back row of the theater was a solid line of junior high school kids.
I have never been a big Wahlberg fan. Despite the running love affair that the critic's have with "Boogie Nights", I thought the film sucked. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that) He has that look about him that permits the playing of characters that are brooding and act on basic instincts. Thoughtful, intelligent or cerebral is defiantly a stretch for his limited acting ability.
All that being said, the character he plays in "Shooter" is not thoughtful, intelligent nor cerebral. He is a highly trained and skillful counter insurgency warrior and with our troops in Iraq fighting this kind of war, we are suckers for this kind of myth making. Our hero is, and I'm sure they focus grouped this one, Bob Lee Swagger. The name has all of the attributes of race car, football and southern rebel that can be stuffed into it. Unfortunately, the face that popped into my mind is comedian, Will Ferrell in his role as race car driver Ricky Bobby.
This whole redneck image is enhanced by the love interest. Bob, (Remember to spell that with one O not two), in his moment of need turns to the widow of his fallen partner Sarah, played by Kate Mara. While she is an attractive and skilled actress, her syrupy southern drawl only serves to drag us further down this cartoon like action adventure trail.
The scene that will immortalize this film occurs shortly after Bob learns that the bad guys concoct the story that he is that guy that tried to assassinate the president. They postulate that since he knew he would never be able to go home he shot his dog. Later, Sarah is begging him not to go after the men that have framed him. They have all of the resources, manpower and money. He could never beat them. He agrees, but argues, "You have to understand, they shot my dog."
If this film had anything going for it other than a high body count and some flagrant, gratuitous violence it might have been fun, but the script was so uneven, the dialogue was so flawed and premise so ridiculous that nothing other than teenagers that talk during the whole
film could be more aggravating, but I'll let her tell you about them.
I have never been a big Wahlberg fan. Despite the running love affair that the critic's have with "Boogie Nights", I thought the film sucked. (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist that) He has that look about him that permits the playing of characters that are brooding and act on basic instincts. Thoughtful, intelligent or cerebral is defiantly a stretch for his limited acting ability.
All that being said, the character he plays in "Shooter" is not thoughtful, intelligent nor cerebral. He is a highly trained and skillful counter insurgency warrior and with our troops in Iraq fighting this kind of war, we are suckers for this kind of myth making. Our hero is, and I'm sure they focus grouped this one, Bob Lee Swagger. The name has all of the attributes of race car, football and southern rebel that can be stuffed into it. Unfortunately, the face that popped into my mind is comedian, Will Ferrell in his role as race car driver Ricky Bobby.
This whole redneck image is enhanced by the love interest. Bob, (Remember to spell that with one O not two), in his moment of need turns to the widow of his fallen partner Sarah, played by Kate Mara. While she is an attractive and skilled actress, her syrupy southern drawl only serves to drag us further down this cartoon like action adventure trail.
The scene that will immortalize this film occurs shortly after Bob learns that the bad guys concoct the story that he is that guy that tried to assassinate the president. They postulate that since he knew he would never be able to go home he shot his dog. Later, Sarah is begging him not to go after the men that have framed him. They have all of the resources, manpower and money. He could never beat them. He agrees, but argues, "You have to understand, they shot my dog."
If this film had anything going for it other than a high body count and some flagrant, gratuitous violence it might have been fun, but the script was so uneven, the dialogue was so flawed and premise so ridiculous that nothing other than teenagers that talk during the whole
film could be more aggravating, but I'll let her tell you about them.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Paradise Now, He Said
If you a rabid believer in the legitimize of the Jewish state of Israel, you probably are not going to like this story of two young men who are going to become human bombs for their cause of Palestinian independence. On the other hand you and all of us should watch this film that takes us into the minds of people that go into combat where they know they are going to die, in fact, you will be pulling the trigger on yourself.
There is little doubt that most of us when we hear of someone blowing themselves up in a crowded area, wonder how you get to that place in your head. Most of us would die for our kids, our family or in military service, but to strap a bomb to you body and get on a bus or to walk through a market place knowing that you're going to kill all of the people around you gets into the area of the unthinkable. We have to think that there is a better way to confront a problem that would pose such a solution. This is the question that this film attempts to answer.
These young men have never really know freedom. Their parents and grandparents are the ones who were eyewitness to the birth of the Jewish State. What they know is the camp mentality and prison atmosphere of the West Bank Settlements. What they know is the one sided history of a people in search of what they believe is their homeland. What they know is that fulfillment of their ancestors dream is being prevented by the Israel. To them the face of Israel is the border guards and soldiers, who humiliate them and remind them of their subjugation.
In the beginning of the film we meet two very bright and hardworking young men, who are trapped in jobs that are below their capabilities, but there are no opportunities in this place. When they get the news that they have been selected to carry out a mission of vengeance they celebrate the opportunity. However as they prepare for their mission, they waffle back and forth on the question of are they doing the right thing. Much of this indecision comes not from a lack of personal bravery, but their concern and love for each other.
Their voice of reason resides in the character of a young women who is the daughter of one of the hero's of the resistance and is attracted to one of our fighters,. She is adamant that this kind of resistance is futile and counter productive in that it only infuriates their enemy and turns the rest of the world, outside of Islam, against them. The difference here is that she has lived and traveled outside of the West Bank and has seen the enemy and know them for what they are, people just like them.
She tells them that wasting their lives for the movement is crazy and in the end will have no effect. For the moment neither of them is moved. In an almost keystone cop telling of events the moment of decision is finally reached. Will they become one of the nameless and forgotten hero's of this kind of warfare or will they turn back and work for meaningful peace?
Because of this film, I no longer wonder why people become suicide bombers. I don't condone it. I still believe that it doesn't serve their cause nor does it do anything but needlessly take useful innocent lives. However, if in order to negotiate a peaceful ending to this terrible conflict, we need to understand the mindset of the combatants, this film gives us plenty to think about.
There is little doubt that most of us when we hear of someone blowing themselves up in a crowded area, wonder how you get to that place in your head. Most of us would die for our kids, our family or in military service, but to strap a bomb to you body and get on a bus or to walk through a market place knowing that you're going to kill all of the people around you gets into the area of the unthinkable. We have to think that there is a better way to confront a problem that would pose such a solution. This is the question that this film attempts to answer.
These young men have never really know freedom. Their parents and grandparents are the ones who were eyewitness to the birth of the Jewish State. What they know is the camp mentality and prison atmosphere of the West Bank Settlements. What they know is the one sided history of a people in search of what they believe is their homeland. What they know is that fulfillment of their ancestors dream is being prevented by the Israel. To them the face of Israel is the border guards and soldiers, who humiliate them and remind them of their subjugation.
In the beginning of the film we meet two very bright and hardworking young men, who are trapped in jobs that are below their capabilities, but there are no opportunities in this place. When they get the news that they have been selected to carry out a mission of vengeance they celebrate the opportunity. However as they prepare for their mission, they waffle back and forth on the question of are they doing the right thing. Much of this indecision comes not from a lack of personal bravery, but their concern and love for each other.
Their voice of reason resides in the character of a young women who is the daughter of one of the hero's of the resistance and is attracted to one of our fighters,. She is adamant that this kind of resistance is futile and counter productive in that it only infuriates their enemy and turns the rest of the world, outside of Islam, against them. The difference here is that she has lived and traveled outside of the West Bank and has seen the enemy and know them for what they are, people just like them.
She tells them that wasting their lives for the movement is crazy and in the end will have no effect. For the moment neither of them is moved. In an almost keystone cop telling of events the moment of decision is finally reached. Will they become one of the nameless and forgotten hero's of this kind of warfare or will they turn back and work for meaningful peace?
Because of this film, I no longer wonder why people become suicide bombers. I don't condone it. I still believe that it doesn't serve their cause nor does it do anything but needlessly take useful innocent lives. However, if in order to negotiate a peaceful ending to this terrible conflict, we need to understand the mindset of the combatants, this film gives us plenty to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)