Saturday, July 25, 2009
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
I know, I know, I really have no defense for this. All I can say is that I had just gone a three hour run wanted to kill a few hours, and I kind of wanted to see if this was as big of a trainwreck as I'd heard. It is, but a boring one. I've sort of had a love, hate, ambivalent relationship with the works of Mr. Michael Bay. I actually really enjoyed The Rock, found Bad Boys to be entertaining in a ridiculous sort of way, and think Armageddon is one of the pinnacles of unintentional comedy that gets more rewatchable by the year. Had Mr. Bay stuck with making these type of films he and I probably would have gone about our respectives lives with no ill-will (granted its sort of a one-sided relationship but stick with me). Then came the run of Pearl Harbor, Bad Boys II, and Transformers when Bay decided he was a serious filmmaker and his films went from ridiculously over the top (which I can deal with and kind of enjoy) to mind-numbingly boring, and there is nothing I hate more than boring filmmaking. Bad I can deal with, heck I can even enjoy fiascos, but if I'm bored you have failed utterly and completely. And look at the subject matter of those three films (WWII, Miami Cops, Robots Hitting eachother) there is no excuse to not be at least moderately engaging. Transformers II continues this trend. I really don't want to get into the specifics because I don't have the energy. It was two and a half hours long that I probably checked my watch at least six times. The film has no sense of humor about itself (Robots hitting eachother, not the most serious subject matter) as Bay shoots every scene like its the most important event in human history (again Robots hitting eachother). It even has elements that in almost any other film I would consider patently offensive (the 'black' robot twins who speak in ebonics have gold teeth and are illiterate, or the blantant support of a totalitarian military state) but this film is so tedious that even these otherwise insulting elements are neutered to the point of being completely ignorable. The only bright (and I use that term in the loosest possible manner) spot is John Turturro who seems to at least understand the absurdity of the rest of the film and tries to embrace the ridiculousness. And I can't underestimate ridiculousness besides the aforementioned doofus brothers, the film features transformer babies, a visit by Shia to transformer heaven, and a mini transformer humping Megan Fox's leg (just to begin with). You would think at least one of those things would have been handled with a bit of real levity, but they all feel tired and fall completely flat. I have nothing else to say its boring (though not as boring as Angels and Demons) and a waste of time.
In The Valley of Elah
In the Valley of Elah desperately wants to be a weighty and important film. You can see the effort being expended as it tries to show how war changes soldiers, and that it can lead them commit horrible acts when they return unable to adjust to everyday life after everything they've seen. The problem is the harder it worked bang this point home the less I cared. Oh the film is reasonably well done, Tommy Lee Jones would be entertaining reading a phone book, and Charlize Theron (in full on uglied up mode to really ram home that this is a 'serious' movie) is usually competent. The problem is that the film isn't content with letting the story speak for itself, no it wants to bludgeon you to death with its themes to make sure everything sinks in. Want to show that Tommy Lee Jones' character still has all his former military training internalized? Why not showing making the hotel bed just like a military bunk three different times. Want to show that crazy things happen to soldiers' minds when they go back to war? Don't just have Jones' character's son be possibly murdered and chopped up in a fit of blind rage by his unit buddies, throw in another unrelated soldier who drowns his doberman then murders his wife and leaves her in the bathtub so Theron can cry while holding her hand. You get the idea. Throw in a huge dose of Jones' character going Encyclopedia Brown on the local police force while they investigate his son's death (seriously the entire film involves him walking up to a scene and in five minutes saying exactly what happened) and the whole thing just became overwhelmingly pedantic and tiresome. Its too bad because I think there's a good idea for film buried in there, unfortunately the filmmakers were too concerned with making sure that everyone watching understand what important points they were making about the human condition that they killed any real human emotion that the story could have possessed.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The Hurt Locker
The Hurt Locker is a modern super hero film sneakily disguised as an intensely real war drama. The film follows a US army unit tasked to dismantle IED's in Iraq. The film opens with the unit's previous commander getting killed in an explosion, he's replaced by our film's protagonist Sgt. James, a bomb defusing whiz (873 to date) whose loose and relaxed style clashes with his more by the book team members. Even though that description sounds cliche the way the film portrays their relationship manages to be anything but (at least most of the time). The bomb sequences are incredibly gripping, and a battle in the desert was one of the most engaging sequences I've seen in any film this year. The film isn't perfect, the effort spent trying to explain James' motivations is generally clumsy, and alot of the interaction between the unit members away from the battle field feels forced but these are minor issues, and I highly recommend seeking this film out.
Now back to my earlier super hero comment. As the film goes on the James character reminded me more and more as Batman. Not the old Adam West batman, but the new Dark Knight version. While all of the situations we see him engaged in feel real, and the danger is palaptable, by the end of the film I eventually got the sense that this guy was so much better than everyone else that, even though he could very much experience pain and self doubt (like new Batman), he was probably going to prevail. Like Batman he's shown as being subject to erratic behavior and subject to his own form of mania, but this doesn't keep him from being 'the man.' The closing scene in the film I think puntuates this point nicely (you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it, and you will see it and not Transformers, right?). Why this angle is interesting to me is that most 'realistic' war films don't really try to set up the characters in this sort of hero light, if anything this harkened back to a more old fashioned form of film-making protagonists were always protrayed as being somewhat larger than life. Now the Hurt Locker implies this in a much more subtle way than, say, The Sands of Iwo Jima but the undercurrent is definitely there and it made the film a little more interesting to watch.
Now back to my earlier super hero comment. As the film goes on the James character reminded me more and more as Batman. Not the old Adam West batman, but the new Dark Knight version. While all of the situations we see him engaged in feel real, and the danger is palaptable, by the end of the film I eventually got the sense that this guy was so much better than everyone else that, even though he could very much experience pain and self doubt (like new Batman), he was probably going to prevail. Like Batman he's shown as being subject to erratic behavior and subject to his own form of mania, but this doesn't keep him from being 'the man.' The closing scene in the film I think puntuates this point nicely (you'll know what I'm talking about when you see it, and you will see it and not Transformers, right?). Why this angle is interesting to me is that most 'realistic' war films don't really try to set up the characters in this sort of hero light, if anything this harkened back to a more old fashioned form of film-making protagonists were always protrayed as being somewhat larger than life. Now the Hurt Locker implies this in a much more subtle way than, say, The Sands of Iwo Jima but the undercurrent is definitely there and it made the film a little more interesting to watch.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
I'm not going to bother with the plot, you're either on board at this point or you're not. Here's a few thoughts:
1) This is the first film of the series where I could see someone who hadn't read the books getting a little lost in parts. I really don't think this is that big of an issue since at this point you have to figure that everybody who's going to be on board is already up to date with all incarnations of the Potter mythology (including fan fiction that depicts Harry hooking up with Ethel Merman). The filmmakers aren't trying to convince new people to see this, they just need to keep the true believers happy - something in which they largely succeed. Yes huge chunks of the book are cut out (necessarily so, I believe this tome clocked in at roughly five thousand pages) but they hit all the high points and move the story along well. Really I have to say that they filmmakers have actually done a pretty good job with the entire series keeping true to the spirit of the books, while still making fairly entertaining stand alone films. This is a harder task than it appears (given the dramatic failure of most book adaptations) and even though they're helped by strong source material that's no guarantee that it will translate into solid film making (see the Narnia films for exhibit A).
2) Ron has been successively marginalized in each film to the point of just having him sitting on a curb while Harry and Hermione make the big plans at the end of this one. I understand that the filmmakers can focus on only so many characters at once (and I think they in general picked the right ones), but they might want to think about making Ron have more to do than just wander around acting like somebody who just fell off the short school bus since he's so prominatly involved in what happens.
3) For some reason they decided to turn Dumbledore into Shecky Green (timely reference, for the kids). While the character always had a subtle sense of humor in the earlier installments, in this one he's constantly firing off one liners like its Late Night at the Apollo. It wasn't necessarily unfunny but felt like a wierd tonal shift for him.
4) The film does play up the raging hormones and adolescent romances of the characters more than the book did, but thankfully it doesn't cross over (much) into creepy/annoying territory. Given that this is an area that could have been handled horribly I'm happy that it came off as light as it did. Still the sexual tension between Ron and Harry could have been dialed down a bit.
5) The above criticisms are rather minor. This installment kept up the momentum of the previous films, and I look forward to what they do with the final two films. It also made me want to go back and reread the last book just to remember what happens next (how's that for mixing tenses) which is a good sign. Of course these aren't necessarily great films, but they're solid and infinitely more watchable than much of the other fantasy dreck aimed at similiar demographics (Twilight I'm looking at you).
1) This is the first film of the series where I could see someone who hadn't read the books getting a little lost in parts. I really don't think this is that big of an issue since at this point you have to figure that everybody who's going to be on board is already up to date with all incarnations of the Potter mythology (including fan fiction that depicts Harry hooking up with Ethel Merman). The filmmakers aren't trying to convince new people to see this, they just need to keep the true believers happy - something in which they largely succeed. Yes huge chunks of the book are cut out (necessarily so, I believe this tome clocked in at roughly five thousand pages) but they hit all the high points and move the story along well. Really I have to say that they filmmakers have actually done a pretty good job with the entire series keeping true to the spirit of the books, while still making fairly entertaining stand alone films. This is a harder task than it appears (given the dramatic failure of most book adaptations) and even though they're helped by strong source material that's no guarantee that it will translate into solid film making (see the Narnia films for exhibit A).
2) Ron has been successively marginalized in each film to the point of just having him sitting on a curb while Harry and Hermione make the big plans at the end of this one. I understand that the filmmakers can focus on only so many characters at once (and I think they in general picked the right ones), but they might want to think about making Ron have more to do than just wander around acting like somebody who just fell off the short school bus since he's so prominatly involved in what happens.
3) For some reason they decided to turn Dumbledore into Shecky Green (timely reference, for the kids). While the character always had a subtle sense of humor in the earlier installments, in this one he's constantly firing off one liners like its Late Night at the Apollo. It wasn't necessarily unfunny but felt like a wierd tonal shift for him.
4) The film does play up the raging hormones and adolescent romances of the characters more than the book did, but thankfully it doesn't cross over (much) into creepy/annoying territory. Given that this is an area that could have been handled horribly I'm happy that it came off as light as it did. Still the sexual tension between Ron and Harry could have been dialed down a bit.
5) The above criticisms are rather minor. This installment kept up the momentum of the previous films, and I look forward to what they do with the final two films. It also made me want to go back and reread the last book just to remember what happens next (how's that for mixing tenses) which is a good sign. Of course these aren't necessarily great films, but they're solid and infinitely more watchable than much of the other fantasy dreck aimed at similiar demographics (Twilight I'm looking at you).
Friday, July 17, 2009
Bruno
For a film that features a copious amount of male nudity and desires to break every tabboo imaginable Bruno is surprisingly restrained. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty to be offended by in the film. Sasha Baron Cohen spends much of the film in various states of undress (and always wearing a thong) and brings his gay Austrian fashion icon in contact with a group of swingers (to try and turn straight), Paula Abdul (who he gets to sit on a mexican chair person), Ron Paul (who he tries to seduce into making a sex tape with him), Al Quaeda terrorists (in a effort to get kidnapped), Israeli and Palenstinian leaders (to try and solve the crisis), The US Army, a group of redneck hunters, and a mixed martial arts audience. He also makes copious use of dildos, and makes out with multiple men (including a philipino midget) in an effort to shock people, but even with all that it ended up feeling tame especially compared to its predecessor Borat. I think what ended up happening was that Cohen became to well known to easily draw people in to his ridiculous set ups, and as a result this film relies on more staged pieces which rob it of the sense of danger and anarchy that made Borat so appealing (in a manner of speaking). This isn't to say I didn't find elements of Bruno funny because I laughed out loud more times than not. Cohen even manages to get in several examples of pretty inspired satire even within the aforementioned constraints. Still I can't help but feel that he's played out this brand of humor and is going to have to move on to other things. I do think he's a talented guy and I'll be interested to see what he'll do with what, will have to be, a more restrained form of humor.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Public Enemies
Public Enemies is not about the seminal rap group. I only mention this because I went in under that misapprehension, and was a little discombobulated when instead of seeing Chuck D, Flava Flav, and Terminator X I got Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, and Billy Crudrup. Now you would say that these are essentially the same people and I shouldn't have been able to tell the difference from appearences, and you would be correct. However when Mr. Depp did not immediately start breaking into thoughtful politically motivated rap I realized that I was actually watching a film about the rise and fall of depression era criminal John Dillinger. So not quite what I was expecting but after disposing of the clock hanging around my neck I was able to get over it.
This film has all the elements of a successful movie. Interesting story, good cast (the above three plus Marion Cotillard), and a solid director (Michale Mann), however I left it feeling that it was just alright as opposed to anything groundbreaking. The whole exercise feels fairly mechanical, and it falls prey to the problem, that a lot of films in this genre have, of not being able to have the final confrontation to the very end (I'm not saying the final confrontation should be at the beggining, so I guess the correct thing would be to say that the actual problem is these films aren't completely sure how to get to the final confrontation). As a result it mistakenly has Bale's FBI agent almost catch Depp's Dillinger so many times that eventually the whole exercise began to feel a little rote and when the ultimate confrontation finally occurs its impact has been diliuted. The film is still entertaining and better than most of the other wide releases out concurrently (cough-Angels & Demons, Transformers, Ice Age 3 - cough), just don't expect another goodfellas or godfather.
Postscript: Take this rant for what it is - the ridiculous nitpicking of a socially retarded blogger. A few years ago a buddy of mine the Marines took me to a shooting range and I learned what a difficult activity it actually is. Basically if you don't stand like you're about to have a bowel movement and have both hands on the gun the odds of actually hitting something you're aiming at are miniscule. As a result whenever I watch movies now and see guys running around and firing guns one handed while doing barrell rolls I tend to roll my eyes a little bit (Kind of like when I hear characters give incorrect tax advice - don't you know your influence on the Children? THE CHILDREN?) I only mention this because Public Enemies has a plethora of this kind of gun play. In particular there one scene where Christian Bale is hanging off the side of a car with a tommy gun in one hand and manages to mow down, and this is my conservative estimate, fifty thousand bad guys. Usually this wouldn't bother me but in a film that purports to represent some semblance of reality this really distracted me. Of course I'm also distracted by shiny things on the ground. And the above paragraph does not say that I'm too uptight and need to relax. All people think this way. At least all of the people I know. SHUT UP!
This film has all the elements of a successful movie. Interesting story, good cast (the above three plus Marion Cotillard), and a solid director (Michale Mann), however I left it feeling that it was just alright as opposed to anything groundbreaking. The whole exercise feels fairly mechanical, and it falls prey to the problem, that a lot of films in this genre have, of not being able to have the final confrontation to the very end (I'm not saying the final confrontation should be at the beggining, so I guess the correct thing would be to say that the actual problem is these films aren't completely sure how to get to the final confrontation). As a result it mistakenly has Bale's FBI agent almost catch Depp's Dillinger so many times that eventually the whole exercise began to feel a little rote and when the ultimate confrontation finally occurs its impact has been diliuted. The film is still entertaining and better than most of the other wide releases out concurrently (cough-Angels & Demons, Transformers, Ice Age 3 - cough), just don't expect another goodfellas or godfather.
Postscript: Take this rant for what it is - the ridiculous nitpicking of a socially retarded blogger. A few years ago a buddy of mine the Marines took me to a shooting range and I learned what a difficult activity it actually is. Basically if you don't stand like you're about to have a bowel movement and have both hands on the gun the odds of actually hitting something you're aiming at are miniscule. As a result whenever I watch movies now and see guys running around and firing guns one handed while doing barrell rolls I tend to roll my eyes a little bit (Kind of like when I hear characters give incorrect tax advice - don't you know your influence on the Children? THE CHILDREN?) I only mention this because Public Enemies has a plethora of this kind of gun play. In particular there one scene where Christian Bale is hanging off the side of a car with a tommy gun in one hand and manages to mow down, and this is my conservative estimate, fifty thousand bad guys. Usually this wouldn't bother me but in a film that purports to represent some semblance of reality this really distracted me. Of course I'm also distracted by shiny things on the ground. And the above paragraph does not say that I'm too uptight and need to relax. All people think this way. At least all of the people I know. SHUT UP!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Surfer, Dude
Before getting into why this is a deceptively good film, let's go through a brief run down of the plot. Surfer comes home to Malibu after having been abroad for a few years. He find sout that his contract has been sold to a corporation that wants him to star in a reality show about surfing. Surfer just wants to surf and smoke pot, but all the waves disappear and he goes months without surfing. Finally he stands up to the big corporation, the waves come back, and all is right in the world.
Sounds unbearable and derivative right? Normally I would agree but the film largely succeeds as a low key affable comedy mainly due to the strength of its star Matthew McConaughy. Now I know big Mac gets a lot of crap for playing the same character in every film, and making a lot of sub par films, but you know what? I don't care. He's one of the few actors that always brings a smile to my face whenever I see him on screen (though I've made a concerted effort to avoid his romantic comedies), and he always seems like he's enjoying himself which I can appreciate. He spends the entire runtime of this film wearing the same pair of boardshorts (with the exception of the one scene where he is naked and playing a didgeridoo on his porch) and not once did I become annoyed. I think if anybody else was playing the role I would have given up halfway through but McConaughy can play the laid-back likeable stoner like nobody else. Who cares if its just the Wooderson character from Dazed and Confused, that was a great character. Adam Sandler essentially plays the same role in all his films too and he's way more annoying.
The film also has fun supporting turns by Woody Harrelson (stoned manager - granted not much of a stretch), Willie Nelson (stoned sheep farmer - ditto) and Scott Glenn (stoned former surfer now living in Mexico), which contribute to Surfer, Dude's (the comma is important) deceptively endearing vibe. Of course its not great cinema in the classical sense but I can definitely say I enjoyed watching it more than almost anything else I've seen recently (Angels and Demons I'm looking at you).
Sounds unbearable and derivative right? Normally I would agree but the film largely succeeds as a low key affable comedy mainly due to the strength of its star Matthew McConaughy. Now I know big Mac gets a lot of crap for playing the same character in every film, and making a lot of sub par films, but you know what? I don't care. He's one of the few actors that always brings a smile to my face whenever I see him on screen (though I've made a concerted effort to avoid his romantic comedies), and he always seems like he's enjoying himself which I can appreciate. He spends the entire runtime of this film wearing the same pair of boardshorts (with the exception of the one scene where he is naked and playing a didgeridoo on his porch) and not once did I become annoyed. I think if anybody else was playing the role I would have given up halfway through but McConaughy can play the laid-back likeable stoner like nobody else. Who cares if its just the Wooderson character from Dazed and Confused, that was a great character. Adam Sandler essentially plays the same role in all his films too and he's way more annoying.
The film also has fun supporting turns by Woody Harrelson (stoned manager - granted not much of a stretch), Willie Nelson (stoned sheep farmer - ditto) and Scott Glenn (stoned former surfer now living in Mexico), which contribute to Surfer, Dude's (the comma is important) deceptively endearing vibe. Of course its not great cinema in the classical sense but I can definitely say I enjoyed watching it more than almost anything else I've seen recently (Angels and Demons I'm looking at you).
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Angels and Demons
Okay I'm going to put off two other reviews to break into this one. I'm back in the old hometown this week and as a result the selection of films available for viewing is limited to say the least. As a result when my dad wanted to go see something our options were pretty much I love You beth Cooper (No), Transformers II (Hell No) and Angels and Demons (Why God Why?). Since he had read the book we decided to go to the latter even though The Da Vinci Code goes down as possibly the most boring film I've seen in the last five years. Angels and Demons might exceed that admittedly low bar, but only just. I don't really want to get into the plot (it involves the death of a Pope, the Illuminati, and god help us an Anti-Matter Bomb) because if you care you've already seen he movie and if you don't it doesn't matter. Rather let me give you five reasons why this is one of the few times I actually felt stupider upon leaving the theatre:
1) The film is criminally boring. For a story that centers around the murder of four cardinals by an ancient organization as well as the potential annihilation of the Vatican City, there was surprisingly little tension (and by little I mean none). The entire film can be summarized as such:
Run down hallways breathlessly while Tom Hanks' character spouts some encyclopedic fact about catholic lore
Be just a little too late
Let Hanks look around a little bit
Have him say 'the statue is pointing that way'
Repeat
Seriously its like the filmmakers thought 'Hey if we have everyone run while talking it will give the impression that something is happening.' They failed. I can't remember one time where I cared about what was going to happen or surprised by any development. Not a good sign for a thriller.
2) Did I mention how boring it was? The film has absolutely no energy, and the whole thing just feels like a mechanical exercise to get from point A to point B, with some exposition about catholic history thrown in. I realize that the plot is based on some sort of complex historical back story (cue wanking motion) but does that mean the whole thing has to feel like reading the world's most badly written history book? I really hate to do this but this film is going to make me say something nice about the Natural treasure films. Like Angels and Demons those films were based on some 'intricate' pseudo-history and involved a lot of exposition, but at least they had a bit of energy and exhibited something of a pulse in their execution. Now this is probably due to the fact that Nic Cage may be insane, but still it least it felt like something was happening (even though it wasn't).
3) Speaking of Nic Cage I would have loved to see him take on the character of Robert Langdon. As it is Hanks plays him as being kind of a douche, and definitely not somebody you'd want to spend any time with. The guy spends the whole film with the same stoic expression and delivers his (voluminous) exposition (while running remember) at every moment. Seriously I could see asking him if he wants a drink and getting back a few thousand words about how Catholic Church's treatment from Galileo. He's definitely the kind of guy who couldn't go seven sentences without saying he teaches at Harvard.
4) The film tries to introduce a debate about the relationship between science and religion and fails spectacularly. The only real debate is essentially this exchange between two protesters:
Science guy: Don't Block stem cell research!
Church Guy (old grandma with a babushka): Don't play god!
(they shove each other)
So yeah a real subtle and intelligent consideration of an important world issue. I mean seriously when you're making a pulp film that is already overburdened with heavy handed exposition don't try to make a political statement.
5) I don't even want to get into the bad guys plan because it makes no sense, and the motivation given is weak. Just trust me this thing is boring, stay away. There's not even any unintentional comedy (which I can appreciate) to hang onto. Its really just a colossal misfire by people that should know better.
1) The film is criminally boring. For a story that centers around the murder of four cardinals by an ancient organization as well as the potential annihilation of the Vatican City, there was surprisingly little tension (and by little I mean none). The entire film can be summarized as such:
Run down hallways breathlessly while Tom Hanks' character spouts some encyclopedic fact about catholic lore
Be just a little too late
Let Hanks look around a little bit
Have him say 'the statue is pointing that way'
Repeat
Seriously its like the filmmakers thought 'Hey if we have everyone run while talking it will give the impression that something is happening.' They failed. I can't remember one time where I cared about what was going to happen or surprised by any development. Not a good sign for a thriller.
2) Did I mention how boring it was? The film has absolutely no energy, and the whole thing just feels like a mechanical exercise to get from point A to point B, with some exposition about catholic history thrown in. I realize that the plot is based on some sort of complex historical back story (cue wanking motion) but does that mean the whole thing has to feel like reading the world's most badly written history book? I really hate to do this but this film is going to make me say something nice about the Natural treasure films. Like Angels and Demons those films were based on some 'intricate' pseudo-history and involved a lot of exposition, but at least they had a bit of energy and exhibited something of a pulse in their execution. Now this is probably due to the fact that Nic Cage may be insane, but still it least it felt like something was happening (even though it wasn't).
3) Speaking of Nic Cage I would have loved to see him take on the character of Robert Langdon. As it is Hanks plays him as being kind of a douche, and definitely not somebody you'd want to spend any time with. The guy spends the whole film with the same stoic expression and delivers his (voluminous) exposition (while running remember) at every moment. Seriously I could see asking him if he wants a drink and getting back a few thousand words about how Catholic Church's treatment from Galileo. He's definitely the kind of guy who couldn't go seven sentences without saying he teaches at Harvard.
4) The film tries to introduce a debate about the relationship between science and religion and fails spectacularly. The only real debate is essentially this exchange between two protesters:
Science guy: Don't Block stem cell research!
Church Guy (old grandma with a babushka): Don't play god!
(they shove each other)
So yeah a real subtle and intelligent consideration of an important world issue. I mean seriously when you're making a pulp film that is already overburdened with heavy handed exposition don't try to make a political statement.
5) I don't even want to get into the bad guys plan because it makes no sense, and the motivation given is weak. Just trust me this thing is boring, stay away. There's not even any unintentional comedy (which I can appreciate) to hang onto. Its really just a colossal misfire by people that should know better.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Away We Go
I was interested in seeing this film for two reasons: Dave Eggers (writer) and John Krasinski (star). Eggers wrote one of the most original memoirs (which is a description that should apply to every memoir - but doesn't) I've read in recent in recent memory (A heartbreaking work of staggering genius) and runs the excellent magazine McSweeney's. Krasinski is Jim on The Office enough said. If it wasn't for their involvement I probably would have passed on the film as its plot (couple learns their having a baby and decides to travel around the country trying to find out where they should, and at the same time learn something about themselves) sounded like five hundred other indie films that have come out over the years. Unfortunately while the film has some very nice moments it too often descends into broad comedy to be considered fully effective.
The film does a good job with the interactions between the main couple, capturing the fear and apprehension that I would imagine anybody in their situation (mid-thirties and not really being sure about what they're doing with their lives and suddenly having to deal with a pregnancy) would most assuredly feel. These scenes are handled with a sense of poignancy and realism that makes it all the more jarring when the couple interacts with just about anyone else in the film. The majority of the couples they visit come off as being bad SNL sketches (really, a hippie couple who lets the kids stay in the same bed when they're having sex, won't use strollers because you're pushing the children away from you, and breast feeds other people's babies?) and disrupt the more grounded central relationship. Look I like quirkiness as much of the next guy, but it seems to be a central conceit of most indie films that you have to have quirkiness just for the sake of it (the little miss sunshine syndrome). If you're going to introduce those type of elements into a story they have to feel like an organic extension of the rest of the plot and not just a way to show how 'original' the film is. This is what really makes the work of guys like Wes Anderson so effective. He's able to create a highly stylized universe where all the esoteric characters feel like they belong and enhance, rather than distract from, the overall vibe of the film.
I don't want to leave you with an overly negative of Away We Go. The film does a nice job dealing with the main relationship and has more to offer than a typical road movie/comedy/pregnancy drama (which are rolling off the assembly line every day). Its just not as good as it could/should have been.
The film does a good job with the interactions between the main couple, capturing the fear and apprehension that I would imagine anybody in their situation (mid-thirties and not really being sure about what they're doing with their lives and suddenly having to deal with a pregnancy) would most assuredly feel. These scenes are handled with a sense of poignancy and realism that makes it all the more jarring when the couple interacts with just about anyone else in the film. The majority of the couples they visit come off as being bad SNL sketches (really, a hippie couple who lets the kids stay in the same bed when they're having sex, won't use strollers because you're pushing the children away from you, and breast feeds other people's babies?) and disrupt the more grounded central relationship. Look I like quirkiness as much of the next guy, but it seems to be a central conceit of most indie films that you have to have quirkiness just for the sake of it (the little miss sunshine syndrome). If you're going to introduce those type of elements into a story they have to feel like an organic extension of the rest of the plot and not just a way to show how 'original' the film is. This is what really makes the work of guys like Wes Anderson so effective. He's able to create a highly stylized universe where all the esoteric characters feel like they belong and enhance, rather than distract from, the overall vibe of the film.
I don't want to leave you with an overly negative of Away We Go. The film does a nice job dealing with the main relationship and has more to offer than a typical road movie/comedy/pregnancy drama (which are rolling off the assembly line every day). Its just not as good as it could/should have been.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)