Advertisement
Home Blog Page 3084

‘Green Lantern’ Movie Review

By
Ian Forbes
-
Ryan Reynolds and Tomar Re in Green Lantern
Ryan Reynolds and Tomar Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush) in 'Green Lantern' - © Warner Bros Pictures

Those who read my X-Men: First Class review know that I can be passionate about comic book films. Like with books, graphic novels, and the like, it’s important to me that if you’re going to adapt something for the silver screen, you either stay extremely faithful to the source material or you find some intriguing approach that makes it your own and acknowledges that you’ve gone a different direction.

Well, none of that matters for Green Lantern because I really couldn’t care less after watching it.

The film sees Hal Jordan as the Green Lantern, whom comic book aficionados know was the rebirth of the franchise in 1959 when DC relaunched the series (Alan Scott was the original in 1940). There have been multiple ‘Green Lanterns,’ and the more hardcore fans can debate if they chose the right one for a film (or for Ryan Reynolds to depict). They did stick fairly closely to the actual origin elements of Jordan – though the villain is a nod to much more recent events. (Also, super fans may realize one of the alternate Green Lanterns is also in the film, albeit in his normal self, but I noticed that more from looking at the cast listing than the movie itself.)

But just as important as it is to get some of the details right (and I’m not so much of a fan that I know if they got it all right), the number one thing a film needs to do is entertain. Quite frankly, I found myself a bit bored by the manner in which the story developed. I never really bought into the chemistry between Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds. There’s no initial development of Peter Sarsgaard’s character, so his turn toward evil makes no dramatic impact. It seemed a bit redundant for all three central cast figures to have daddy issues. Some of the dialogue comes straight from a “How to Compose Trite Sentences” pamphlet one of the writers must have picked up off the ground. Etc. Etc.

When I wasn’t fed up with the script, I was annoyed at the CGI. Was George Lucas a consulting producer? The environments felt about as real as a Star Wars prequel. Rather than Green Lantern, they could have called this “Green Screen,” with all the special effects; the worst of which being the fully CGI costume placed over Reynolds. 1st problem, he has abs, you don’t need to creep us out with fake ones. 2nd problem, it simply looked Photoshopped onto him. 3rd, and most problematic the face mask. That little green strip over his eyes was so ridiculously fake that I was constantly distracted. I understand you want the suit to feel ‘alive’ but with all of the glorious things computers can do today, why not just add in some touches that flow throughout an actual costume rather than scrap it entirely? It’s a poor decision, both in its concept and execution.

Then there’s the 3D. Anyone who just needs to see what they’ve done to a character they love can go ahead and select a nice, 2D version to see on the big screen. This is another conversion project, wherein whole scenes can go by with very few elements even selected for the extra dimension … and even fewer make a difference. I took my special glasses off for nearly an entire scene when Reynolds and Lively are attempting to make us realize they care about each other at a bar. Every now and then, I noticed it was blurry but most of that was from the filter theaters use in projecting 3D, not from the film itself trying to be 3D.

If the 3D conversion process was the reason this film was pushed from a December release last year, the time was not well spent. If the post-production CGI elements were the reason, the time was not well spent. Of course, there’s the other reason one pushes a film back, it’s not very good. This certainly holds true in the case of Green Lantern. It never builds to anything very exciting, Reynolds is the only thing that shifts the bland, monotonous tone now and again, and if they plan on franchising this one, then the first thing that needs to happen is finding a new director and screenwriters.

Unless you’re such a diehard fan that you have to see this film (and if you choose to do so, there’s an extra scene in the middle of the credits), save that extra cash for something else. If I didn’t acknowledge the comic book roots of the film, the review would have gone more like this: “Meh”; Which is about as much as I could say about it when the theater lights came up and more than I’ll think about it in the future.

GRADE: D+

Green Lantern hits theaters on June 17, 2011 and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi violence and action.




‘The Tree of Life’ Movie Review

By
Ian Forbes
-
Jessica Chastain, Tye Sheridan, and Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life
Jessica Chastain, Tye Sheridan, and Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life (Photo by Merie Wallace © 20th Century Fox)

Terrence Malick is not what you would call a prolific filmmaker. Including his feature film debut of Badlands in 1973, he’d rattled off a total of four films in 37 years. But with The Tree of Life, number five is out there and it’s justifiably getting a lot of good critical buzz.

As expected in a Malick production, the acting is top notch. Brad Pitt has shown he’s quite capable of delivering a fully dynamic, developed character and does so here as the patriarch of the O’Brien family. It’s the 1950s and he’s got a good job, earning the bread money for his wife (Jessica Chastain) and their three sons (Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, Tye Sheridan). However, as his career begins to flounder, he grows increasingly frustrated and begins taking things out on those closest to him. Watching this slow descent by Pitt is fascinating and one of the better performances of the year to this point.

Chastain is equally impressive, fulfilling her role as dutiful housewife and protector of her children from a husband whose softer sides are being sharpened away. Rounding out the family, the actors portraying their kids perfectly depict their roles and make the 1950s segments an entire film until itself.

This brings up perhaps the most difficult element audiences unfamiliar with Malick’s work or unused to anything but straightforward problem/resolution films, will have. There are many layers to The Tree of Life, as comparisons and contrasts are made, sometimes overtly but often via metaphor, between numerous themes; religion vs. spirituality, man vs. nature, man vs. himself, to name a few. The film deals with loss, creation, and family. It’s also a portrait of this seemingly perfect family at a time, the 1950s, which exemplifies fundamental American ideals.

And what may frustrate some while pleasing others is that Malick doesn’t seem to give us clear-cut answers. See this with a few friends and enjoy the debate afterward on what was being represented by the closing scenes, by the amorphous glowing light that serves as some sort of visual interlude between segments, by the actions of a velociraptor and its prey, by Mr. O’Brien’s struggle with being so devoutly religious and wondering how his family could face so many obstacles. It’s a lot to take in, and it may take some time afterward just to gather your thoughts and conclusions as to what the film was trying to say. That’s perfectly fine with me, not so much with others. And it’s okay if you’re in that latter group. Don’t let someone tell you only smart people enjoy this sort of thing because the expectations and reasons for seeing films differ from person to person.

Back to the merits of Malick’s film, where it truly marvels is in depicting the birth and development of the Earth. We’re shown the formation of the planet itself, how it changed from a dead piece of rock into a living, breathing world, with evolving organisms, from the most rudimentary forms of life all the way up to the dinosaurs (sorry, Creationists). All of the effects are outstanding, and this segment of the film is one of the most impressive stretches of cinema I’ve seen in years.

And whereas the actors and effects are all compelling, once again Malick delivers perhaps the best-shot film since … well, probably since his last film, 2005’s The New World. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki returns from that effort, and I’d be completely surprised, albeit happily so, if any other film this year looks better. The light balance, the composition of the elements, the clearly thought-out and well-conceived camera placement and movement; all of it is astounding.

Working in harmony with the director, cinematographer, and effects team is composer Alexandre Desplat. His original creations complement the actions on-screen rather than compete with them. They also go hand in hand with a number of established classical, orchestral, and operatic pieces.

While it’s up to each person to find a connection to the material, there’s really no denying the artistry on display in The Tree of Life and as such it receives a 4 out of 5. Those looking for more than comic book adaptations, sequels, and basic popcorn entertainment definitely have something here to appreciate. And whereas some films are fine to watch at home, and some are better on the big screen, to truly appreciate Malick’s latest work, you MUST see this in a nicely projected theater, even if that means a few more travel miles. Seeing this as it was meant to be presented is a treat unto itself, even before factoring in the content delivered by the script and the actors.

GRADE: A

The Tree of Life opened in limited release on May 27, 2011 and is rated PG-13 for some thematic material.




‘The Art of Getting By’ Movie Review

By
Ian Forbes
-
Freddie Highmore and Emma Roberts in The Art of Getting By
Freddie Highmore and Emma Roberts in ‘The Art of Getting By’ (Photo © Fox Searchlight)

In The Art of Getting By, writer/director Gavin Wiesen centers his coming-of-age story on George (Freddie Highmore) – an intelligent but underachieving high school senior filled with teenage angst. He doesn’t have any friends, sketches all over his textbooks, and overthinks everything. Of course, as fate would have it, sheer dumb luck brings his high school crush, Sally (Emma Roberts), into his life and turns the last few months of high school upside down for him.

And then the bottom drops out. While Rita Wilson and Elizabeth Reaser do a nice job of playing George and Sally’s mothers (respectively), nearly every other adult feels like a stock character from a hundred different movies about high school. We’ve got Michael Angarano as the stereotypical New York artist/former graduate of the same high school, who serves as a mentor for George and, of course, at some point screws him over … but it’s okay, it’ll serve to teach him a life lesson (*puke*). Sam Robards plays George’s stepfather, and just think how stepfathers are normally written and you know how this will turn out (*sigh*).

Then there’s the faculty of the school. Blair Underwood is the tough but overly fair principal who keeps giving George chances because of his potential – no matter how many rules he breaks. English teacher Alicia Silverstone (like I care what her character’s name is) is so happy to see that a kid actually understands the mind-numbingly boring work of Thomas Hardy and only gets fed up with his antics when it’s time for the script to shift into auto-write.

Jarlath Conroy portrays the gruff art teacher (complete with just a wisp of a ponytail) that nurtures his students like an old-timey midshipman on leave. George also has a trigonometry teacher (Ann Dowd) that isn’t happy he’s not applying himself. She too fits neatly into this carbon copy assembly of teachers that apparently have the time to focus so much energy on one kid because that’s how movies work (*puke* and *sigh*).

Needless to say, the only real bright spots are Highmore and Roberts. They really absorb and become these characters, sharing a wonderful chemistry despite the shortcomings the script imparts onto the other actors (and ultimately onto them as well). It’s a little odd to see little Freddie Highmore growing up, but he nails the role and makes us believe all of the eccentricities and insecurities welled up inside of George. Roberts is also fantastic, albeit in a slightly different role than audiences may be accustomed to (emotionally guarded and using her sexuality to give the illusion that she’s in control of her life). It’s good to see her tackle a variety or roles and I’m increasingly impressed with her work.

But no matter how good the two leads are, it appears Wiesen was far too close to the material in order to reasonably edit himself. At one stage, the film was going to be called Homework (Netflix still listed it this way as of June 7th). If anything, that banal title may be more apropos considering the cliff the script jumps off in the last 20 minutes. Everything, and no I’m not being facetious – EVERYTHING that wraps up the story comes out of some trite, cliché, heavy-handed, feel-good handbook that nullifies the pain and angst built into the characters over the course of the film.

This wasn’t even a case of rooting for the main characters to end up alone and broken, as I so often do. I simply want a film, and by “a film” I mean this film, to be consistent and logically follow the constructs set from the outset. It’s a disservice to the actors who do all that they can and a slap in the face to audiences suckered into thinking this might not be just another cookie-cutter romantic dramedy (ugh, yet another sub-genre).

Also, there are a number of scenes where the kids are out at bars apparently drinking alcohol. Sure, they’re the cool kids so they probably have fake IDs, but it’s never addressed. Not being a New Yorker, is this really commonplace? Did I spend all that time in Tijuana between the ages of 18 and 21 senselessly? I could have been happily imbibing a few tall, cool ones in some hip borough of the Big Apple rather than taking sketchy taxis to dirty clubs with who knows what in the appropriately cheap drinks? Damn.

In giving The Art of Getting By a D+, I almost feel too generous. Highmore and Roberts give excellent performances, but the resolution undercuts all that could have been. Fans of these up-and-coming actors are much better off waiting for this to hit the home market than plunking down the cash at even a matinee price. The only heart getting broken will be yours when you realize how special this could have been … only it’s not (*tear*).

GRADE: D+

The Art of Getting By hit theaters on June 17, 2011 and is rated PG-13 for thematic elements including sexual content, language, teen drinking, and partying.

‘Super 8’ Movie Review

By
Ian Forbes
-
Super 8 Cast
Kyle Chandler, Joe Courtney, Elle Fanning and Ron Eldard in ‘Super 8’ (Photo © Paramount Pictures)

Super 8 comes from writer/director J.J. Abrams. It features his ridiculous assortment of lens flares (not nearly as prevalent as in Star Trek thankfully), but aside from that and a far more agile, violent creature, many would be hard-pressed to say that producer Steven Spielbergwasn’t the one calling action behind the camera.

Whether or not that’s a bad thing is up to you, but the small Ohio town the film is set in feels like Amity in Jaws. The kids banding together, taking matters into their own hands is right out of The Goonies (Spielberg was an executive producer). And of course, the contents of the derailed train are not of this world; touching on themes apparently near and dear to Spielberg’s heart, a la Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., A.I., War of the Worlds, and Indiana Jones 4 – not to mention a number of projects he produced.

I grew up watching many of those films though and found a great deal of comfort in seeing a movie centered around kids that treated them with respect. Far more often than not, anything with a bunch of 13-year-olds these days is some Nickelodeon/Disney spin-off made of substance so thin you can read through it. Films like The Goonies, Lost Boys, and Monster Squad all feature adolescent protagonists faced with overcoming adult-sized obstacles but they don’t talk down to the kids. Rather than be limited by their age, they use the curiosity, eagerness, and sense of adventure so many adults lose as they “grow up” to their advantage.

To that end, what makes the film so entertaining is how well cast all of the kids were. Joel Courtney, in his feature film debut, absolutely nails the part; so much more impressive as he’s the main character and essentially carries the story from beginning to end. If there is such a thing as a co-lynchpin, it’s Elle Fanning, who seems to utilize a far more natural approach than her much more lauded older sibling (while Dakota’s great, sometimes we see her “acting”). Courtney and Fanning share remarkable chemistry, and their scenes together are the best of the film, connecting the audience with the characters beautifully.

It’s also appreciative that their burgeoning attraction isn’t fast-forwarded simply because the film is just under two hours. This is the beginning of a relationship, and they’re in middle school; there’s no need to act like these are 24-year-olds playing high school seniors and I’m relieved to see it depicted more appropriately here.

The rest of the kids in the group are also superbly cast. They each have distinctive characteristics, and it makes for one of the best adolescent ensembles put on-screen. My only small gripe is that I couldn’t tell you the name of every kid after the credits rolled. There are two who play larger roles and as such don’t have this problem, but there were a few more who did feel a bit more like background players. While I didn’t need more fully developed scenes with each of them adding to the runtime, it would have been nice for some of their introductions to be done just a bit more clearly and with focus on them rather than as ancillary support to the others.

Also helping to make the film something truly worthy of being seen on the big screen are the effects. Some fantastical events occur in this small town, and Abrams does a nice job of both satiating modern audiences while also paying homage to the Spielberg films that are responsible for the basic DNA of Super 8.

I have a few more minor gripes about the revelation of the creature (like with Jaws, it’s nicely held off-screen for a long time, but it would have been more fitting that the kids’ film was the first time the audience sees it). Also, there are a few heavy-handed moments as they try to amp up the sentimentality of key scenes. And I think the ending comes about a bit too quickly and conveniently.

But as far as big budget, Hollywood summer tent pole films go, Super 8 is the best one to come along in years. Trying to think of a comparable, I end up going back decades, often to some of the films it’s directly drawing from. As such, I’m highly recommending people go out and see it. (And make sure to stay in your seats once the credits roll, as a very special treat, is played over them.)

The only word of caution I would give is that the PG-13 rating is perhaps a little too generous. There are some scenes that I would not feel comfortable bringing someone under 15 or 16 to see … but then again, media desensitization seems to be happening to younger and younger kids, so it’s really just something worth considering if you’ve got children in middle school or below. Obviously, every case is different, but I was bothered by the very young age (more like 9 or 10) of some of the kids brought to the screening I attended … and more so that they didn’t seem fazed by things that would have scared the crap out of me when I was their age. Growing up is supposed to be a process, not something done early enough to ensure parents don’t need to find babysitters for too many years. (And now to get off my high horse.)

GRADE: A

Super 8 was released on June 10, 2011 and is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, language and some drug use.




‘Mr. Popper’s Penguins’ Movie Review

By
Ian Forbes
-
Jim Carrey in Mr Popper's Penguins
Jim Carrey in ‘Mr Popper’s Penguins’ (Photo © 20th Century Fox)

Before I get to talking about Mr. Popper and his Penguins, allow me a brief rant (this time it’s only 2 paragraphs) concerning some pre-show entertainment:

I’m 100% behind the idea of a cute short film (live or animated) shown prior to a feature film. It’s a throwback to a bygone era, and it gives a little extra time for the people behind you (having a fascinating discussion about how Marcus, that good-for-nothing freeloader, dumped poor, sweet Ellie via text message) to SHUT UP. Can we all agree that when the lights go down, the mouths go silent?

Anywho, before watching Mr. Popper’s Penguins, 20th Century Fox thought it’d be cute to show “Scrat’s Continental Crack-Up”, a 3-minute animated short featuring the titular Scrat once again trying to hold onto his beloved acorn. It’s not a bad short per se … but I’ve SEEN IT BEFORE. I personally saw it before Rio and according to the IMDb message boards, it was placed in front of “Gulliver’s Travels” too. How unoriginal do you have to be to show the same short THREE TIMES (and maybe more)?

If you’re going to spin off the character into a series of shorts, fine … I get it. But especially considering the same demographic is being targeted for all of these films, audience overlap is expected, and it’s simply cheap (fiscally and morally) to keep trotting this out. It was amusing the first time I saw it. Move on.

As for me moving on, let’s talk about Mr. Popper’s Penguins. Based on the book of the same name by Richard and Florence Atwater, the story is justifiably centered around Mr. Popper (Jim Carrey) and six penguins named Captain, Loudy, Bitey, Lovey, Stinky, and Nimrod. Popper is a lawyer trying to make partner who’s long since lost his inner child because of paternal abandonment issues. Obviously, the penguins are there to help him find his soft side, to be a better partner for his ex-wife (Carla Gugino), a better father to his kids (Madeline Carroll, Maxwell Perry Cotton), and a better person in general.

The plot unfolds as one expects, though anyone anticipating some bold, new take on the family film oeuvre probably needs to relax. Carrey gets to mug for the camera and show off a little bit of his warmer side, echoing his role in Liar, Liar (director Mark Waters obviously wasn’t going for The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind here). And Gugino is a veteran of the genre and the seeming go-to casting choice when it comes to maternal figures with a side of romantic entanglement (Spy Kids, Race to Witch Mountain (2009), Night at the Museum), so she also does fine.

Helping Carrey and Gugino is a supporting cast that was well chosen. Carroll and Cotton give what’s necessary to their roles as kids from a split household. Ophelia Lovibond perfectly plays the plucky personal assistant with a peculiar partiality for words starting with the letter ‘p.’ Clark Gregg gets to step out of his S.H.I.E.L.D. duties for a second and portray a Zoo employee trying to procure the penguins. And Angela Lansbury is always a welcome treat as the owner of the renowned Tavern on the Green in New York’s Central Park.

Of course, the real stars of the film are the penguins. I suppose if a poll was done, these tuxedo-garbed, flightless birds would rank right up there with pandas, koalas, and baby animals of nearly every kind. However, through the magic of CGI, animal trainers, and the film’s editors, what’s nice here is that each one has a distinct personality (though sadly, they’re bereft the narration of Morgan Freeman). After a short time, you can pretty much distinguish one from another on-sight, and any confusion is quickly cleared up by their actions (pro tip: their names basically tell you how they act).

If there is a negative to the actions of these cute penguins, it’s the excretory humor; one gag would have been enough…they didn’t have to go for it multiple times…but I’m weird like that.

Unsurprisingly, Ben Stiller was first attached to this film (it would have reunited him and Gugino) but had to drop out. I’m glad, however, that he couldn’t be a part of it – not so much because he can’t deliver this type of role but because it would have felt like a spin-off of the Night at the Museum franchise rather than its own entity. Carrey was the perfect choice to step in, as he can deliver the comedic aspects (physical and verbal) and he also exudes the approachable, affectionate side needed in the character.

Look, penguins are adorable – to children and adults alike. While there’s nothing here that breaks the family film formula, there’s also nothing really wrong with that. Mr. Popper’s Penguins delivers exactly what you think it’s going to: a warm-hearted, slightly goofy, kid-friendly movie. If you’ve already seen Kung Fu Panda 2, this is your next best option as parents of young children on up to the low teens.

GRADE: C+

Mr. Popper’s Penguins hits theaters on June 17, 2011. The film’s rated PG for mild rude humor and some language.




‘John Carter’ Movie Preview: Trailer, Cast List, and Plot Details

By
Rebecca Murray
-
Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins in 'John Carter'
Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins in ‘John Carter’ (Photo © Walt Disney Pictures)

Andrew Stanton makes his live-action feature film directorial debut with Disney’s sci-fi action-adventure, John Carter. Taylor Kitsch takes on the lead role in the PG-13-rated film heading to theaters on March 9, 2012.

The cast also includes Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas, Samantha Morton as Sola, Mark Strong as Matai Shang, and Ciaran Hinds as Tardos Mors. Dominic West plays Sab Than, James Purefoy is Kantos Kan, Daryl Sabara is Edgar Rice Burroughs, Polly Walker is Sarkoja, Bryan Cranston is Colonel Powell, and Thomas Haden Church is Tal Hajus.

Official Synopsis: John Carter is a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). John Carter is based on a classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose highly imaginative adventures served as inspiration for many filmmakers, both past and present.

The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands.

John Carter Trivia, courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures:
– Edgar Rice Burroughs was born in Chicago and is best known for writing and creating Tarzan—still one of the most successful and iconic fictional creations of all time. John Carter is based on Burroughs’ first novel, A Princess of Mars.

– Academy Award–winning director/writer Andrew Stanton directed and co-wrote the screenplay for WALL-E which earned the Academy Award and Golden Globe Award for Best Animated Feature of 2008. He was Oscar-nominated for the screenplay. He made his directorial debut with Finding Nemo, garnering an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay and winning the Oscar for Best Animated Feature Film of 2003. He was one of the four screenwriters to receive an Oscar nomination in 1996 for his contribution to Toy Story, and went on to receive credit as a screenwriter on subsequent Pixar films A Bug’s Life, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo and WALL•E.

– The award-winning below-the-line team includes Production Designer Nathan Crowley, Oscar-nominated for both Dark Knight and The Prestige, and Costume Designer Mayes Rubeo, whose work is showcased in Avatar and Apocalypto.

– Michael Chabon, who won the Pulitzer Prize in Literature for his novel The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, is a co-writer on the screenplay.

– Award-winning composer Michael Giacchino has received numerous accolades for his work on previous Disney•Pixar films Up (Oscar winner, Best Original Score; BAFTA winner, Best Music; Golden Globe winner, Best Original Score for a Motion Picture; GRAMMY Award winner, Best Score Soundtrack Album), Ratatouille (GRAMMY Award winner, Best Score Soundtrack Album; Annie Award winner, Best Music in an Animated Feature Production; Oscar nomination, Best Original Score) and The Incredibles (Annie Award winner, Best Music in an Animated Feature Production; GRAMMY nomination, Best Score Soundtrack Album).




‘Beginners’ Movie Review Starring Ewan McGregor and Christopher Plummer

By
Ian Forbes
-
Melanie Laurent and Ewan McGregor in 'Beginners'
Melanie Laurent and Ewan McGregor in 'Beginners' - © Focus Features

Seeing scores of films every year, a measure of cynicism creeps in. It’s not hard for the eyes to go glossy when seeing the umpteenth romantic comedy of the year that follows some screenwriting 101 formula and pits two adorable young stars against each other in a love/hate/love relationship.

However, just when it seems all romantic movies have gone to pot and I’m on the verge of succumbing to looking at films through jaded glasses, there comes a film like Beginners. A deeply personal tale from writer/director Mike Mills, the semi-autobiographical story is split into two distinct but intertwined narratives.

At 75, Hal (Christopher Plummer) has lost his wife and feels free enough to finally come out of the closet; having spent 40-plus years in a loving marriage but one that denied him his true sexuality. His son Oliver (Ewan McGregor), blindsided by this revelation, looks to his memories in search of reconciling the way he looks at his family, all the while doing his best to embrace Hal’s newfound independence and passion.

The second story concerns Oliver dealing with life following his father’s passing (you learn this in the opening minutes, it’s not a spoiler). He meets a French actress named Anna (Mélanie Laurent) and rather than submarine the relationship as he’s done in the past, is inspired by his father’s attitude of never giving up on life.

The beauty of Beginners lies in how Mills weaves these stories together. It’s reminiscent of a more dramatic (500) Days of Summer but with both stories moving along together linearly for the most part. The honesty and emotion seem to follow through so wonderfully, no doubt helped by the process of shooting each segment separately and in continuity – so as to allow the actors a chance to discover their journey as organically as possible.

Each of the leading cast members deliver some of their best work. Plummer superbly balances the character with a newfound zest for life and the calm wisdom of his years. McGregor exhibits a subtlety and earnest melancholy that draws the audience in from the start and never lets go. Then there’s Laurent, best known to American audiences for her excellent turn as the theater owner in Inglourious Basterds (she learned a bit of English for that role and has only improved since then). Quite simply, she’s stunning here; drawing not only McGregor into her web but the audience as well.

And not to be outdone by his human counterparts, a Jack Russell terrier by the name of Cosmo got a few brown spots painted on him and portrays Hal’s dog, Arthur. Following Hal’s passing, Arthur comes to be Oliver’s and the interplay between the two is priceless. As Oliver seeks guidance in coping with the loss of his father and the introduction of Anna, Arthur comes to the rescue – returning his questions with some witty subtitled answers. No, this isn’t meant to show that Arthur himself is talking back to Oliver, more like Oliver is using him as a sounding board to listen to his own conscience. However, the end result is an engaging repartee and makes even a slightly jaded curmudgeon like myself grin ear to ear.

Much of the actors’ success lies in Mills’ script and direction. He doesn’t fall prey to the notion of telling the audience everything that’s going on. What isn’t in the script is given to us via the images on-screen; the silent moments speak volumes, eye contact between actors is immediately understandable, and before one knows it, you’re fully immersed in Oliver’s world.

This is exemplified best when Oliver and Anna meet. He’s dragged to a costume party, doing a bad job of expressing how much he doesn’t want to be there. That is, until he meets Anna. She’s suffering from laryngitis and must communicate with him via pad and paper, but everything we need to know is said in their body language and in their eyes. It’s mesmerizing to see them make a connection with only his voice to break the silence and is perhaps the most romantic meet-cute I’ve ever seen.

From that point on, we watch as Oliver attempts to navigate this new relationship, and we’re shown how Hal’s final years had a significant impact on his son’s ability to cope with the notion of letting someone into his life.

That doesn’t mean the film is without faults, however. Rather than simply show us Hal finally expressing himself as a gay man, Mills allows Hal’s new partner (Goran Visnijc) to overreact to Oliver at every turn, expecting him to disapprove of his father’s lifestyle. Oliver never shows any hint of wanting to question his father for being who he is, and is nothing but supportive. However, as Visnijc always seems to be expecting such a reaction, it leads one to believe that either there was a person in Mills’ father’s life who was like him and a script revision was in order, or Mills himself questioned things … and a script revision was in order. Nearly every other character motivation is spot on and feels organic and honest, it’s a shame this one wasn’t dealt with prior to final cut.

Still, that’s merely the one complaint I can come up with and for anyone who’s ever dealt with loss or love, there’s bound to be something in Beginners that makes a connection and it’s one of the few must-see films of 2011. I implore people to go out and support this independent film, as this is the kind of work that deserves a wider release than it’s getting and is a welcome stopgap in the constant flow of insipid, lowest common denominator, relationship films.

GRADE: A

Beginners opened in limited release on June 3, 2011.




‘The Trip’ Movie Review (2011)

By
Ian Forbes
-
Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan in The Trip
Rob Brydon and Steve Coogan in ‘The Trip’ (Photo by Phil Fisk, An IFC Films Release)

A small spattering of Americans trekked out to one of 51 theaters that showed Tristram Shandy back in 2006.

Directed by Michael Winterbottom, it took the approach of being a film about making a film, wherein actors Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon play exaggerated versions of themselves, and British wit ensues. For those who enjoy productions from across the pond that are more about the wordplay than high-concept plots, it was a small gem that never got a lot of promotional push.

I bring this up because Winterbottom, Coogan, and Brydon are now back with the same “characters” in The Trip. This time around, Coogan has been asked by the London Observer to review a few posh restaurants in the north of England, way off the beaten path. He was originally going to go with his girlfriend, but a bump in the relationship led to him reluctantly asking Brydon to tag along.

The beauty of the film is watching their Odd Couple relationship; with Coogan as the insecure, status-obsessed narcissist and Brydon the grounded, self-assured accommodator. Their interplay is brilliant, and one could imagine a future series of misadventures with these two, allowing us to enjoy seeing the pair bicker, joke, and debate, again and again.

Probably the most entertaining of their interactions revolve around their impressions. Each feels the need to show that they’re better at capturing the vocal stylings of Michael Caine, Sean Connery, Woody Allen, Liam Neeson, Al Pacino, and more. It’s a running gag that never gets old.

Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon in 'The Trip'
Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon in ‘The Trip’ (Photo by Phil Fisk. An IFC Films release)

Perhaps even odder than the notion of watching these actors portray themselves, only they’re not themselves, is that this was originally a BBC television production. The footage has been cut down from 180 minutes to 107 and edited into one continuous film. I’d be curious to see what elements were cut out, but there’s a clear beginning, middle, and end, and the focus was squarely on Coogan and Brydon so, more than likely, the supporting players were the ones to suffer most from the editing process.

And although this is a comedy, at its heart, the story is about seeing Coogan grow up a bit. He’s obsessed with fame and maintaining the image of an actor who still parties like a rock star. As the story develops, we see Brydon’s influence on him and a few reflective moments that allow Coogan to reevaluate his priorities. One such nudge in the maturation process even comes from a dream sequence with Ben Stiller giving him a bit of the fake Hollywood treatment.

For those who didn’t see Tristram Shandy (which, judging by the box office is the majority), the only other thing you really need to know is that some of the humor is decidedly British – not just in its dry wit but in specific references that may pass over the heads of those not privy to their pop culture. However, it’s also nice to know that the restaurants they visit are real and you can go to them, should you be in the area.

As a fan of their previous collaboration, I greatly enjoyed The Trip. Even with its television roots, it feels very much like an independent feature production and the pairing of Coogan and Brydon is a lot of fun to watch. It too will only get a limited run in America but if the premise intrigues you and it’s playing in your area, make sure to get to it.

GRADE: B




Beyonce’s ‘4’ Release Date and “Run the World” Video

By
Rebecca Murray
-
Beyonce "4"
Beyonce "4" - © Sony Music Distribution

Grammy Award winner Beyonce has set a June 28, 2011 release date for her 4 album, her fourth album as a solo artist. In addition, Beyonce’s 4 has announced a special deluxe edition which will be available at Target.com also beginning June 28th.

Here’s the scoop on the Beyonce’s 4 Deluxe Edition:

“Target Corporation (NYSE: TGT) today announced it is partnering with multi-Grammy® Award-winning artist Beyoncé for the exclusive deluxe edition of her fourth solo album, 4. The deluxe edition of 4 is now available for pre-order at Target.com/Beyonce and will be offered at Target stores nationwide and online beginning June 28. A digital version of the deluxe edition is available at Target.com.

‘My fans will be so excited about my new album because I put my heart and soul into creating something that’s personal and honest,’ said Beyoncé.

Inspired by a variety of music genres she loves, Beyoncé refers to the songs on 4 as her ‘musical gumbo.’ The new collection of ballads, mid and up-tempos incorporates live instrumentation, classic songwriting, and Beyoncé’s undeniable vocal ability. The Target deluxe album includes three additional new songs from Beyoncé as well as three remixes and bonus video footage. The new tracks exclusive to Target are: ‘Lay Up Under Me,’ ‘Schoolin’ Life’ and ‘Dance For You.’

‘Beyoncé’s fans are clamoring for her new album and Target is the only retailer giving them extra songs and video from their favorite artist,’ said John Butcher, vice president of Entertainment, Target. ‘Beyoncé played an active role in the production of the Target deluxe edition, making sure the content would give fans an even greater glimpse into the personal journey that inspired her latest music.’

In addition to the new tracks, the Target deluxe album edition has more than 17 minutes of extra club remixes of ‘Run the World (Girls),’ the album’s lead single released in April of this year. DJ and producer Kaskade and legendary remix producers Redtop and Jochen Simms all contributed to the bonus music. Also found only on the Target deluxe album is an exclusive version of the ‘“Run the World (Girls)’ music video.




‘The Muppets’ “Being Green” Trailer Pokes Fun at ‘Green Lantern’

By
Rebecca Murray
-

Kermit the Frog, the character who made green cool, is the star of the third teaser trailer for The Muppets. Green’s the theme with “Being Green,” and Kermit gets his Green Lantern-vibe on.

The Muppets stars Amy Adams and Jason Segel and will hit theaters on November 23, 2011.

The Muppets Being Green Poster
The Muppets “Being Green” Poster

The Plot:

The Muppets (2011) is the first theatrical release from the Muppets franchise in over a decade and was brought to the screen by the writing genius of Jason Segel. With Segel, Kermit the frog, Miss Piggy, Gonzo, and friends are back in full force!

In The Muppets movie, the Muppets’ biggest fan Walter, a puppet, his brother Gary (Jason Segel), and his brother’s girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) join forces with Kermit the Frog to reunite the Muppets and save the Muppet Theater from being demolished by Tex Richman, who plans to drill for oil in the spot at which the Muppet Theater is built.

1...3,0833,0843,085...3,102Page 3,084 of 3,102

Trending

All Rights Reserved – Showbiz Junkies 2020