By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
At the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, Lars von Trier claimed that he is the best film director in the world. As is the case with many of his comments, and indeed, with many of his films, it is not always clear when von Trier wants us to take him seriously. However, “Melancholia” is worth taking seriously. It is dark, depressing, and pessimistic, but really good.
Most of the first half of “Melancholia” is set amid a beautiful wedding reception at a high-end country club. This is where people are meant to be happy—especially Justine (Kirsten Dunst), who is a beautiful young bride with a loving husband, lots of money, and her whole life ahead of her. But on this, the ‘happiest’ day of her life, Justine is not glowing.
In fact, she can barely eke out a smile. Justine’s gloom is not caused by a subpar reception (it’s actually magnificent) or misbehaving guests (though some do misbehave). Nor is it that her husband (Alexander Skarsgard) is a disappointment. Justine’s melancholy is objectless, aimless—without cause or merit. She is simply depressed.
This makes Justine’s sister, Claire (Charlotte Gainsbourg), anxious. Along with her husband (Kiefer Sutherland), Claire is responsible for making sure that Justine’s wedding reception goes well. However, as Justine frowns, withdraws, and even disappears for long stretches of time, Claire gets wrapped up in her sister’s depression, and this triggers her own deep-seated fears, anxieties, and panic.
Although Justine and Claire’s mental sludge is not directed at any particular object, they certainly do have reason to be afraid. For, while all of the decadence and apparent celebration is going on, a planet called ‘Melancholia’ is hurtling toward earth. This planet had been hiding behind the sun, but now it is rearing its ugly head, and threatening to destroy all earthly life. As Justine, Claire, and their family members come to terms with the possibility of annihilation, they think about the significance of their lives and reflect on the state of nature.
“Melancholia” is about depression, anxiety, human nature, and the relationship between humans and nature. Like most of von Trier’s work, it is deeply and thoroughly pessimistic. Some movies are about the cruelty of nature. Other movies are about the frailty of the human psyche. Still others are about the viciousness of human nature. Von Trier is perhaps unique in that he ties all of these dark elements together; he produces a worldview whereby there is no hope, no goodness, no redemption. It seems that, for von Trier, this is not a gruesome manipulation of the facts, nor is it a horrible fantasy; rather, it’s just the way things are.
Von Trier, who has been open about the fact that he himself suffers from (sometimes crippling) depression, does a remarkable job filling the theater with his moods. The weight of Justine’s depression is palpable—almost suffocating. And von Trier makes sure to cast this shadow over the audience in a variety of ways. Sometimes his work is subtle, and sometimes it’s shocking, but it is nearly always tangible and interesting.
Some have rightly criticized von Trier and his movies. He likes to stir the pot, both in public and on-screen, and sometimes this comes across as overly abstruse, obscene, and even a bit foolish. At his worst, von Trier is a jester—a producer of nonsense. But at his best, he is a genius.
Maybe Lars von Trier is right—maybe he is the best film director in the world. I think otherwise. But I also think that von Trier’s brilliance is very rare. His use of cinematography and other effects is masterful; there are few other living filmmakers who even come close on this score. And, although von Trier continues to be interested in only certain themes, he handles them with nearly unparalleled deftness. “Melancholia” may not be enjoyable at every turn, but it’s a really good movie and an impressive artistic achievement.
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
"The Ides of March"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
On the ides of March, in 44 B. C. E., Julius Caesar was literally stabbed in the back by his political rivals. This story should sound familiar. That is, whether you know your history, have read any Shakespeare, or just hear about Congress every now and then, this story should sound familiar. So maybe it is surprising that “The Ides of March”, George Clooney’s new political thriller, is exciting, fresh, intriguing, and yes, even original. This movie plays on a lot of familiar themes, but it does this with a certain style—a 21st-century twist, if you will—that makes it feel contemporary and relevant.
“The Ides of March” is about the race for public office. Governor Mike Morris of Pennsylvania (George Clooney) is the ideal Presidential candidate. He is smart, good-looking, and well-spoken. He has ideas, and he knows how to communicate them. What’s more, Morris has his finger on the pulse of the country; he knows what people want, and he has something to say about how to give it to them.
But Morris needs Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who is his campaign manager and closest ally. Zara’s experience and political skills are legendary—he is a campaign guru—and his loyalty to Morris is absolutely unshakeable. Indeed, he would quit his job, jump off a bridge, or even shake hands with a Republican before betraying his candidate’s trust.
These characters are easily recognizable, not because they are overly flat or clichéd, but because they know what they stand for, they are consistent, they have their ideas all worked out, and they refuse to give in to the opposition.
Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), Morris’ second-in-command, is somewhat of a different story. He is complicated. Meyers is young, idealistic, and motivated by the hope for a better future. But he is also clever, conniving, and willing to do whatever it takes to win. Meyers thinks that principles like loyalty, honesty, and goodness are important, but he also thinks that (sometimes) the ends justify the means.
As far as Morris’ campaign goes, it looks like it will all come down to Ohio. Meyers and Zara work the phones, talk to supporters, write stump speeches, direct interns—they do everything they can to make sure their guy comes out on top. And it’s working; Morris’ prospects look great.
Rather, Morris’ prospects looked great; that is, until Ohio Republicans conspire to vote for Morris’ Democratic opponent, who is less likely than Morris to win the general election. With this plan in motion, Morris’ hefty lead quickly vanishes. The campaign reaches a fever pitch as everyone scrambles to make the big move that will push Morris over the top.
However, as tensions rise, strategies that were once off the table slide back on the table. Even Meyers, who spews idealism, begins to consider uncouth options—he starts to peer down dark alleys and into smoky back rooms—in order to get his candidate into office. But Meyers is disgusted by what he sees; he is not sure that he can do what it takes to get the job done. For the young, cocksure strategist learns that his intelligence and hard work are not enough to succeed in politics. Meyers learns that he has to get down in the muck, or else hit the showers.
“The Ides of March” is a really good political thriller. Sure, it covers the usual bases: back room deals, betrayal, corruption, tireless stumping, and the byproducts of power. This sort of story, as we know, is as old as Julius Caesar. Nevertheless, this movie is exciting and interesting; it really makes you wonder what is coming next. It’s surprising.
What is not so surprising is that George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Evan Rachel Wood really play their parts well. So well, in fact, that it seems like they actually could succeed as politicians, aides, or strategists. Clooney, who also directs and co-writes “The Ides of March”, really accomplishes a lot here. He makes us think, reflect, and weigh our own values, and he does this without jamming an overwrought message down our throats. And that’s worth watching.
Coastal View News
On the ides of March, in 44 B. C. E., Julius Caesar was literally stabbed in the back by his political rivals. This story should sound familiar. That is, whether you know your history, have read any Shakespeare, or just hear about Congress every now and then, this story should sound familiar. So maybe it is surprising that “The Ides of March”, George Clooney’s new political thriller, is exciting, fresh, intriguing, and yes, even original. This movie plays on a lot of familiar themes, but it does this with a certain style—a 21st-century twist, if you will—that makes it feel contemporary and relevant.
“The Ides of March” is about the race for public office. Governor Mike Morris of Pennsylvania (George Clooney) is the ideal Presidential candidate. He is smart, good-looking, and well-spoken. He has ideas, and he knows how to communicate them. What’s more, Morris has his finger on the pulse of the country; he knows what people want, and he has something to say about how to give it to them.
But Morris needs Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman), who is his campaign manager and closest ally. Zara’s experience and political skills are legendary—he is a campaign guru—and his loyalty to Morris is absolutely unshakeable. Indeed, he would quit his job, jump off a bridge, or even shake hands with a Republican before betraying his candidate’s trust.
These characters are easily recognizable, not because they are overly flat or clichéd, but because they know what they stand for, they are consistent, they have their ideas all worked out, and they refuse to give in to the opposition.
Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling), Morris’ second-in-command, is somewhat of a different story. He is complicated. Meyers is young, idealistic, and motivated by the hope for a better future. But he is also clever, conniving, and willing to do whatever it takes to win. Meyers thinks that principles like loyalty, honesty, and goodness are important, but he also thinks that (sometimes) the ends justify the means.
As far as Morris’ campaign goes, it looks like it will all come down to Ohio. Meyers and Zara work the phones, talk to supporters, write stump speeches, direct interns—they do everything they can to make sure their guy comes out on top. And it’s working; Morris’ prospects look great.
Rather, Morris’ prospects looked great; that is, until Ohio Republicans conspire to vote for Morris’ Democratic opponent, who is less likely than Morris to win the general election. With this plan in motion, Morris’ hefty lead quickly vanishes. The campaign reaches a fever pitch as everyone scrambles to make the big move that will push Morris over the top.
However, as tensions rise, strategies that were once off the table slide back on the table. Even Meyers, who spews idealism, begins to consider uncouth options—he starts to peer down dark alleys and into smoky back rooms—in order to get his candidate into office. But Meyers is disgusted by what he sees; he is not sure that he can do what it takes to get the job done. For the young, cocksure strategist learns that his intelligence and hard work are not enough to succeed in politics. Meyers learns that he has to get down in the muck, or else hit the showers.
“The Ides of March” is a really good political thriller. Sure, it covers the usual bases: back room deals, betrayal, corruption, tireless stumping, and the byproducts of power. This sort of story, as we know, is as old as Julius Caesar. Nevertheless, this movie is exciting and interesting; it really makes you wonder what is coming next. It’s surprising.
What is not so surprising is that George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Evan Rachel Wood really play their parts well. So well, in fact, that it seems like they actually could succeed as politicians, aides, or strategists. Clooney, who also directs and co-writes “The Ides of March”, really accomplishes a lot here. He makes us think, reflect, and weigh our own values, and he does this without jamming an overwrought message down our throats. And that’s worth watching.
Monday, October 3, 2011
"Moneyball"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
In 2002, the New York Yankees made over $125 million. Not surprisingly, the Yankees won 103 games that year. The 2002 Oakland Athletics also won 103 games, but their payroll was about $41 million—less than a third of the Yankees’ payroll. So, the Yankees bought wins with aces and all-stars, but the A’s showed that a team can win just as many games without a blank check. They showed that a poor team can win by pinching pennies, by playing smart—that is, by playing Moneyball.
“Moneyball” is a story about how David outsmarts Goliath, but it begins with heartbreak. Despite putting together a great team, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) stands by as his team crumbles to the Yankees in the 2001 playoffs. That heartbreak only deepens over the next several months as Beane realizes that his team is going to be gutted. The small market A’s cannot afford to keep their stars. They cannot match the massive contracts offered by the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. $41 million just isn’t what it used to be.
But Beane refuses to wave the white flag. Instead, he gets creative. Beane knows that he cannot afford to sign superstars. He knows that he has to pinch every penny in order to field a legitimate team. So Beane plays Moneyball.
Moneyball is a team-building system that marries baseball, statistics and economics. It is all about getting some bang for a buck or two. Those who adopt the system try to buy as many wins as possible with as little money as possible. They do this by ignoring the he-man homerun hitters and flashy base stealers that earn big money, and instead focusing on gritty players that just get on base. These players are often overlooked (and underpaid), but they score runs and win games. So they are perfect for small market teams.
Thus, Beane rubs two pennies together and creates a 2002 Oakland A’s team that he thinks is built to win. Others—Beane’s scouts, the A’s manager, sports analysts, and fans all over the country—think that Beane is crazy. They think that his team has no shot.
And at first they are right. At first, the 2002 A’s are pitiful. With few wins and even fewer supporters, Beane can only hope that he was right—that things will turn around. His job depends on it. His team depends on it. The A’s fans depend on it.
Whether Moneyball is the way of the future remains to be seen. It is unclear whether it will turn out to be a huge success. What is clear is that “Moneyball” (the movie) is a winner both at the box office and with critics. This movie is undeniably well written and well acted. Brad Pitt and the supporting cast feel like the real thing—like they know what they are doing in the dugout and front office—and Aaron Sorkin (along with Steven Zaillian) comes through once again with a fun and amusing screenplay.
However, unless you find baseball, fantasy sports, statistical analysis, etc., intrinsically interesting, you might find this movie to be forgettable. Heck, I like baseball a lot, and I even have a fantasy sports team, but I found “Moneyball” to be pretty mundane.
Part of the problem is that Moneyball is made out to be for the little guy; it is supposed to be a strategy for outsmarting richer ball clubs. But, in reality, the little guy never wins. The small market A’s are never successful in the playoffs. It is only when the rich Red Sox adopt the system that it meets with any success in the playoffs. So, appearances and tag lines aside, it’s not clear that Moneyball does what it says it does—it’s not clear that it really levels the playing field. Such truths inevitably take a little wind out of this movie’s sails.
“Moneyball” is good, but not as good as it is supposed to be. My guess is that those who are intrigued and excited by the previews for “Moneyball” will like the movie. Those who are curious but don’t really care about the topic will be disappointed.
Coastal View News
In 2002, the New York Yankees made over $125 million. Not surprisingly, the Yankees won 103 games that year. The 2002 Oakland Athletics also won 103 games, but their payroll was about $41 million—less than a third of the Yankees’ payroll. So, the Yankees bought wins with aces and all-stars, but the A’s showed that a team can win just as many games without a blank check. They showed that a poor team can win by pinching pennies, by playing smart—that is, by playing Moneyball.
“Moneyball” is a story about how David outsmarts Goliath, but it begins with heartbreak. Despite putting together a great team, Oakland A’s General Manager Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) stands by as his team crumbles to the Yankees in the 2001 playoffs. That heartbreak only deepens over the next several months as Beane realizes that his team is going to be gutted. The small market A’s cannot afford to keep their stars. They cannot match the massive contracts offered by the likes of the Yankees and Red Sox. $41 million just isn’t what it used to be.
But Beane refuses to wave the white flag. Instead, he gets creative. Beane knows that he cannot afford to sign superstars. He knows that he has to pinch every penny in order to field a legitimate team. So Beane plays Moneyball.
Moneyball is a team-building system that marries baseball, statistics and economics. It is all about getting some bang for a buck or two. Those who adopt the system try to buy as many wins as possible with as little money as possible. They do this by ignoring the he-man homerun hitters and flashy base stealers that earn big money, and instead focusing on gritty players that just get on base. These players are often overlooked (and underpaid), but they score runs and win games. So they are perfect for small market teams.
Thus, Beane rubs two pennies together and creates a 2002 Oakland A’s team that he thinks is built to win. Others—Beane’s scouts, the A’s manager, sports analysts, and fans all over the country—think that Beane is crazy. They think that his team has no shot.
And at first they are right. At first, the 2002 A’s are pitiful. With few wins and even fewer supporters, Beane can only hope that he was right—that things will turn around. His job depends on it. His team depends on it. The A’s fans depend on it.
Whether Moneyball is the way of the future remains to be seen. It is unclear whether it will turn out to be a huge success. What is clear is that “Moneyball” (the movie) is a winner both at the box office and with critics. This movie is undeniably well written and well acted. Brad Pitt and the supporting cast feel like the real thing—like they know what they are doing in the dugout and front office—and Aaron Sorkin (along with Steven Zaillian) comes through once again with a fun and amusing screenplay.
However, unless you find baseball, fantasy sports, statistical analysis, etc., intrinsically interesting, you might find this movie to be forgettable. Heck, I like baseball a lot, and I even have a fantasy sports team, but I found “Moneyball” to be pretty mundane.
Part of the problem is that Moneyball is made out to be for the little guy; it is supposed to be a strategy for outsmarting richer ball clubs. But, in reality, the little guy never wins. The small market A’s are never successful in the playoffs. It is only when the rich Red Sox adopt the system that it meets with any success in the playoffs. So, appearances and tag lines aside, it’s not clear that Moneyball does what it says it does—it’s not clear that it really levels the playing field. Such truths inevitably take a little wind out of this movie’s sails.
“Moneyball” is good, but not as good as it is supposed to be. My guess is that those who are intrigued and excited by the previews for “Moneyball” will like the movie. Those who are curious but don’t really care about the topic will be disappointed.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
"Our Idiot Brother"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
One typically wouldn’t ask a complete stranger to hold onto one’s life savings. And, as a rule, one doesn’t blithely confess one’s crimes to the police. One would have to be an idiot to do that. But, then again, maybe the world could use more idiots like that. That is, if it’s only idiots who are trusting and honest, then maybe there is something to it. For, as “Our Idiot Brother” shows, sometimes the biggest idiots turn out to have the best grasp on what is most important.
Ned (Paul Rudd) is a happy-go-lucky guy selling produce at a farmer’s market when he gets arrested and imprisoned for selling pot to a police officer. Ned takes his punishment in stride, but when he gets out of jail, he quickly finds out that he has nowhere to go. His girlfriend (and roommate) has moved on with her life. And the true love of his life—a golden retriever named ‘Willie Nelson’—now belongs to another.
Heartbroken and confused, Ned stumbles into the arms of his mom (Shirley Knight) and three sisters (Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, and Emily Mortimer). At first Ned’s family is glad to see him and happy to help him out. However, before too long, Ned’s presence becomes an irritant—his haplessness begins to interfere with the busy lives of the people he loves.
It might be that Ned is an obnoxiously naïve, painfully unaware, horribly unmotivated hippie who can’t be taken seriously. That is, “Our Idiot Brother” might just look like the story of a dope that gets busted for selling dope, and then goes on to ruin his sisters’ lives. On this interpretation, Ned is the goat. He’s simply an idiot.
But this is not what this movie is about. “Our Idiot Brother” is not just the story of a guy who is so honest that he confesses his crimes to his parole officer; it’s also about what others do in the presence of a person who is so open and trusting. It’s the story of a group of people—Ned’s sisters in particular—who are so busy, clever, conniving, and stressed out that they can’t stand the company of someone like Ned.
Which is a shame, because Ned is kind and loving. He is straightforward and incapable of abusing other people for his own gain. It is true that Ned is naïve, and yes, he could stand to grow up a bit. But it may be that Ned’s faults are not really his own. It could be that the only reason Ned looks like a failure is because he lives in a world that rejects his kindheartedness in favor of vindictiveness. One might think (or worry) that the real problem is not Ned’s childlike trust in others, but rather, others’ inability to be trusted.
“Our Idiot Brother” is funny and charming. Paul Rudd, with his long greasy hair, scraggly beard, broad grin, and blank stare, brings Ned to life. The other characters are also fun to watch, although they are far less memorable than Ned.
It is nice (and noteworthy) that, instead of being a hackneyed story about a loveable screw-up who eventually learns to wise up, this movie is about a genuinely good (albeit simpleminded) person who teaches others that kindness is more important than cleverness. Hence, instead of mocking (and thus devaluing) people like Ned, “Our Idiot Brother” celebrates a certain group of folks who are typically misunderstood or marginalized.
This, together with Ned’s infectious smile, makes “Our Idiot Brother” worth seeing.
Coastal View News
One typically wouldn’t ask a complete stranger to hold onto one’s life savings. And, as a rule, one doesn’t blithely confess one’s crimes to the police. One would have to be an idiot to do that. But, then again, maybe the world could use more idiots like that. That is, if it’s only idiots who are trusting and honest, then maybe there is something to it. For, as “Our Idiot Brother” shows, sometimes the biggest idiots turn out to have the best grasp on what is most important.
Ned (Paul Rudd) is a happy-go-lucky guy selling produce at a farmer’s market when he gets arrested and imprisoned for selling pot to a police officer. Ned takes his punishment in stride, but when he gets out of jail, he quickly finds out that he has nowhere to go. His girlfriend (and roommate) has moved on with her life. And the true love of his life—a golden retriever named ‘Willie Nelson’—now belongs to another.
Heartbroken and confused, Ned stumbles into the arms of his mom (Shirley Knight) and three sisters (Elizabeth Banks, Zooey Deschanel, and Emily Mortimer). At first Ned’s family is glad to see him and happy to help him out. However, before too long, Ned’s presence becomes an irritant—his haplessness begins to interfere with the busy lives of the people he loves.
It might be that Ned is an obnoxiously naïve, painfully unaware, horribly unmotivated hippie who can’t be taken seriously. That is, “Our Idiot Brother” might just look like the story of a dope that gets busted for selling dope, and then goes on to ruin his sisters’ lives. On this interpretation, Ned is the goat. He’s simply an idiot.
But this is not what this movie is about. “Our Idiot Brother” is not just the story of a guy who is so honest that he confesses his crimes to his parole officer; it’s also about what others do in the presence of a person who is so open and trusting. It’s the story of a group of people—Ned’s sisters in particular—who are so busy, clever, conniving, and stressed out that they can’t stand the company of someone like Ned.
Which is a shame, because Ned is kind and loving. He is straightforward and incapable of abusing other people for his own gain. It is true that Ned is naïve, and yes, he could stand to grow up a bit. But it may be that Ned’s faults are not really his own. It could be that the only reason Ned looks like a failure is because he lives in a world that rejects his kindheartedness in favor of vindictiveness. One might think (or worry) that the real problem is not Ned’s childlike trust in others, but rather, others’ inability to be trusted.
“Our Idiot Brother” is funny and charming. Paul Rudd, with his long greasy hair, scraggly beard, broad grin, and blank stare, brings Ned to life. The other characters are also fun to watch, although they are far less memorable than Ned.
It is nice (and noteworthy) that, instead of being a hackneyed story about a loveable screw-up who eventually learns to wise up, this movie is about a genuinely good (albeit simpleminded) person who teaches others that kindness is more important than cleverness. Hence, instead of mocking (and thus devaluing) people like Ned, “Our Idiot Brother” celebrates a certain group of folks who are typically misunderstood or marginalized.
This, together with Ned’s infectious smile, makes “Our Idiot Brother” worth seeing.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
"Crazy, Stupid, Love"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
The once imperceptible dull ache of a dying marriage suddenly pulsates anew when Emily (Julianne Moore) tells her husband, Cal (Steve Carell), that she wants a divorce. Cal is dumbfounded. He doesn’t scream or cry. He doesn’t yell or argue. Cal just sits there silently—unresponsive, numb and confused.
Cal does not understand how the love of his life could leave him. But even more, Cal has no idea how a once vibrant relationship could slowly turn boring, dull and flat. Cal is completely at sea, and he is paralyzed by his ignorance. He can do nothing but sit alone at a bar muttering about his failed marriage.
Luckily, Jacob (Ryan Gosling) takes notice. Jacob is Cal’s foil. While Cal is dumpy and plain, Jacob is unmistakably handsome. Whereas Cal’s clothes are out of date and two sizes too big, Jacob’s style is immaculate and his wardrobe is impeccable. As Cal drowns his sorrows with a fruity cocktail, Jacob prowls the bar, martini in hand—the inveterate ladies man.
Maybe Jacob feels for Cal, or maybe he is just tired of seeing Cal mope around the bar, but one way or another, Jacob decides to help Cal turn his life around. He takes him to high-end clothing stores, helps him pick out pricey accessories, and teaches him how to make his ex-wife jealous by picking up beautiful women.
After a few hiccups, Cal manages to master Jacob’s trade. He trades in his middle-aged married lifestyle for the life of a bachelor, picking up plenty of gorgeous women in the process. Meanwhile, Jacob undergoes a transformation of his own. After meeting Hannah (Emma Stone), who is unlike the other women he tends to attract, Jacob considers retiring his chic shades and well-worn pickup lines in favor of something more stable.
As Cal and Jacob undergo these changes, and face the inevitable identity crises that ensue, they begin to consider what they really want in life. For Cal, he doesn’t know whether he wants to continue his new lifestyle or fight for the love and affection of his wife of so many years. Jacob, on the other hand, knows who he wants, but does not know how to abandon the life he once lived.
Each relationship in “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is believable and compelling. Nothing seems forced or manufactured. The attraction, interaction, irritation, disappointment, and the love all seem real. The actors deserve a lot of credit for this. Steve Carell is funny, but doesn’t taint the genuineness of his character by channeling Michael Scott or some other overwhelming personality. And Ryan Gosling is even better than Carell. He plays his part perfectly by being sleazy, but not so sleazy that you aren’t willing to love him in the end.
“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is an unconventional movie about love. For one thing, its aims go beyond cheap thrills and funny one-liners (though it has plenty of funny one-liners). It deftly examines the difficult choices and circumstances that surround, and sometimes inflict, one’s love life. Also, it does a good job of highlighting both the good and the bad—the inspiring and the ambiguous—aspects of romantic relationships. There is a refreshing honesty about this movie. More romantic comedies should be like “Crazy, Stupid, Love”.
Coastal View News
The once imperceptible dull ache of a dying marriage suddenly pulsates anew when Emily (Julianne Moore) tells her husband, Cal (Steve Carell), that she wants a divorce. Cal is dumbfounded. He doesn’t scream or cry. He doesn’t yell or argue. Cal just sits there silently—unresponsive, numb and confused.
Cal does not understand how the love of his life could leave him. But even more, Cal has no idea how a once vibrant relationship could slowly turn boring, dull and flat. Cal is completely at sea, and he is paralyzed by his ignorance. He can do nothing but sit alone at a bar muttering about his failed marriage.
Luckily, Jacob (Ryan Gosling) takes notice. Jacob is Cal’s foil. While Cal is dumpy and plain, Jacob is unmistakably handsome. Whereas Cal’s clothes are out of date and two sizes too big, Jacob’s style is immaculate and his wardrobe is impeccable. As Cal drowns his sorrows with a fruity cocktail, Jacob prowls the bar, martini in hand—the inveterate ladies man.
Maybe Jacob feels for Cal, or maybe he is just tired of seeing Cal mope around the bar, but one way or another, Jacob decides to help Cal turn his life around. He takes him to high-end clothing stores, helps him pick out pricey accessories, and teaches him how to make his ex-wife jealous by picking up beautiful women.
After a few hiccups, Cal manages to master Jacob’s trade. He trades in his middle-aged married lifestyle for the life of a bachelor, picking up plenty of gorgeous women in the process. Meanwhile, Jacob undergoes a transformation of his own. After meeting Hannah (Emma Stone), who is unlike the other women he tends to attract, Jacob considers retiring his chic shades and well-worn pickup lines in favor of something more stable.
As Cal and Jacob undergo these changes, and face the inevitable identity crises that ensue, they begin to consider what they really want in life. For Cal, he doesn’t know whether he wants to continue his new lifestyle or fight for the love and affection of his wife of so many years. Jacob, on the other hand, knows who he wants, but does not know how to abandon the life he once lived.
Each relationship in “Crazy, Stupid, Love” is believable and compelling. Nothing seems forced or manufactured. The attraction, interaction, irritation, disappointment, and the love all seem real. The actors deserve a lot of credit for this. Steve Carell is funny, but doesn’t taint the genuineness of his character by channeling Michael Scott or some other overwhelming personality. And Ryan Gosling is even better than Carell. He plays his part perfectly by being sleazy, but not so sleazy that you aren’t willing to love him in the end.
“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is an unconventional movie about love. For one thing, its aims go beyond cheap thrills and funny one-liners (though it has plenty of funny one-liners). It deftly examines the difficult choices and circumstances that surround, and sometimes inflict, one’s love life. Also, it does a good job of highlighting both the good and the bad—the inspiring and the ambiguous—aspects of romantic relationships. There is a refreshing honesty about this movie. More romantic comedies should be like “Crazy, Stupid, Love”.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
"Thor"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Thor, son of Odin, god of thunder, can do anything—he is invincible. Or so he thinks. In fact, Thor’s weaknesses run deep. And, unfortunately, the tragic flaws associated with Thor extend to his self-titled movie. For, much like Thor’s destructive power, “Thor” is somewhat fun to watch, but it is also messy, brutish and unfulfilling.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is heir to the throne of the realm of Asgard. Thor is courageous, honest, and noble. But it’s unclear whether he is fit to lead. For Thor is also arrogant and rash. He is prone to overstating the offenses of others, and he is quick to resolve disputes with the crash of his mighty hammer. Hence, while Thor’s father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is resigned to turning his kingdom over to Thor, he feels uneasy about giving so much power to his reckless son.
Odin’s uneasiness is soon justified when Thor undermines the tenuous peace between Asgard and its former enemy. Thor brings unnecessary war to his people, and this infuriates and saddens Odin. So, with much sorrow, Odin banishes Thor from Asgard and forces his son to live the life of an earthbound mortal.
At first Thor does not fully understand his plight. Upon landing on earth he meets a group of scientists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and he seems to think that his powers remain intact. So Thor approaches Foster and her group with the same swagger that made him an outcast. But Thor quickly comes to realize that he is no longer invincible. He cannot take on the whole world by himself. He is no more than a burly (and slightly odd) human.
So Thor needs Foster’s help. Foster is intrigued, charmed, but also frightened by Thor. Luckily, her attraction and scientific curiosity ultimately win the day. Foster manages to help, study, and also fall in love with Thor over the course of a day or two. Thor’s powers may have worn off, but his godly allure certainly hasn’t.
Thor works with Foster to understand and overcome the mortal challenges that he faces. Together they learn that Thor’s enemies are not who he thought they were—there is a much more formidable foe lying in wait. Thor tries to regain his old powers in order to subdue this new enemy, but he is further humbled in the process. With more on the line than ever, Thor must overcome his physical weakness, and also his ego and pride, in order to once again save the day.
I don’t know if “Thor” is any good. I must have already forgotten. I guess that makes “Thor” forgettable. In its favor, this movie is chock full of action. It’s fun. And in certain ways it breathes new life into the superhero genre. For Thor is a new kind of superhero. His beaming smile and crushing hammer are especially charming. This movie’s cast is also one of its strengths. Chris Hemsworth is perfectly suited to play Thor, and Natalie Portman is, of course, fantastic.
However, “Thor” has plenty of flaws. For instance, the plot is overcrowded. That is not to say that the movie is particularly complex or confusing. It’s just that too much ground is covered in too little time. There are too many conflicts that need to be resolved and too many threads that need to be developed. Unfortunately, none of the conflicts get a chance to fully play out, and none of the threads are developed convincingly. The external quasi-conflicts between Thor and his detractors are straightforward and mundane—maybe even downright boring. Thor’s internal quasi-conflict over his own pride and recklessness is resolved too quickly. We don’t see the process of change; rather, we see lightning quick reform (maybe this suits the god of thunder). And finally, the quasi-love story between Thor and Foster is unconvincing. This is especially odd and unfortunate because Portman is such a good actress, and Hemsworth … well, he plays a god.
So I don’t know if “Thor” is any good, but at least it has its moments, and at least it is entertaining. That makes it better than many (if not most) superhero movies.
Coastal View News
Thor, son of Odin, god of thunder, can do anything—he is invincible. Or so he thinks. In fact, Thor’s weaknesses run deep. And, unfortunately, the tragic flaws associated with Thor extend to his self-titled movie. For, much like Thor’s destructive power, “Thor” is somewhat fun to watch, but it is also messy, brutish and unfulfilling.
Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is heir to the throne of the realm of Asgard. Thor is courageous, honest, and noble. But it’s unclear whether he is fit to lead. For Thor is also arrogant and rash. He is prone to overstating the offenses of others, and he is quick to resolve disputes with the crash of his mighty hammer. Hence, while Thor’s father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is resigned to turning his kingdom over to Thor, he feels uneasy about giving so much power to his reckless son.
Odin’s uneasiness is soon justified when Thor undermines the tenuous peace between Asgard and its former enemy. Thor brings unnecessary war to his people, and this infuriates and saddens Odin. So, with much sorrow, Odin banishes Thor from Asgard and forces his son to live the life of an earthbound mortal.
At first Thor does not fully understand his plight. Upon landing on earth he meets a group of scientists led by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and he seems to think that his powers remain intact. So Thor approaches Foster and her group with the same swagger that made him an outcast. But Thor quickly comes to realize that he is no longer invincible. He cannot take on the whole world by himself. He is no more than a burly (and slightly odd) human.
So Thor needs Foster’s help. Foster is intrigued, charmed, but also frightened by Thor. Luckily, her attraction and scientific curiosity ultimately win the day. Foster manages to help, study, and also fall in love with Thor over the course of a day or two. Thor’s powers may have worn off, but his godly allure certainly hasn’t.
Thor works with Foster to understand and overcome the mortal challenges that he faces. Together they learn that Thor’s enemies are not who he thought they were—there is a much more formidable foe lying in wait. Thor tries to regain his old powers in order to subdue this new enemy, but he is further humbled in the process. With more on the line than ever, Thor must overcome his physical weakness, and also his ego and pride, in order to once again save the day.
I don’t know if “Thor” is any good. I must have already forgotten. I guess that makes “Thor” forgettable. In its favor, this movie is chock full of action. It’s fun. And in certain ways it breathes new life into the superhero genre. For Thor is a new kind of superhero. His beaming smile and crushing hammer are especially charming. This movie’s cast is also one of its strengths. Chris Hemsworth is perfectly suited to play Thor, and Natalie Portman is, of course, fantastic.
However, “Thor” has plenty of flaws. For instance, the plot is overcrowded. That is not to say that the movie is particularly complex or confusing. It’s just that too much ground is covered in too little time. There are too many conflicts that need to be resolved and too many threads that need to be developed. Unfortunately, none of the conflicts get a chance to fully play out, and none of the threads are developed convincingly. The external quasi-conflicts between Thor and his detractors are straightforward and mundane—maybe even downright boring. Thor’s internal quasi-conflict over his own pride and recklessness is resolved too quickly. We don’t see the process of change; rather, we see lightning quick reform (maybe this suits the god of thunder). And finally, the quasi-love story between Thor and Foster is unconvincing. This is especially odd and unfortunate because Portman is such a good actress, and Hemsworth … well, he plays a god.
So I don’t know if “Thor” is any good, but at least it has its moments, and at least it is entertaining. That makes it better than many (if not most) superhero movies.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
"Fast Five"
By: Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
You could probably imagine what it would be like if Vin Diesel fought Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Limbs and torsos would writhe and tangle. A lot of stuff would be broken. Things would happen that couldn’t possibly happen. And there would be an utter lack of sensible dialogue. Yet—and I am slightly embarrassed to say this—it would be fun to watch. And the same things can be said of “Fast Five”. This movie is well over the top. It’s absurd, actually. But in spite of this (or perhaps because of it), “Fast Five” is pretty enjoyable.
After years of running (or driving) afoul of the law, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is sentenced to prison. So, naturally, the absurdity—and enjoyment—begins when Toretto is (literally) busted out of a jail bus by Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia (Jordana Brewster). The crew hightail it to Rio de Janeiro and lay low. That is, for a day or two. But before they have a moment to downshift, Toretto, O’Connor, and Mia are caught up in an ill-conceived heist that almost gets them killed, and does get three U. S. government agents killed.
Hence, the first miracle on the crew’s way to automotive un-sainthood is driving away from the smoldering wreckage that swallows up everyone else. Their second miracle—if they can pull it off—will be to elude the clutches of U. S. special agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson). Toretto, O’Connor and Mia are fast, but Hobbs and his heavy-hitting law enforcement thugs are right on their tail.
And then comes another twist. Toretto, O’Connor and Mia come across highly valuable information concerning the dealings of Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), the kingpin of Rio’s drug-driven underbelly. Emboldened by a mix of self-righteousness and testosterone, the crew decides to use this information to lift Reyes’ ill-gotten treasure. They assemble a team—the best of the best—and hatch a scheme that would make Daniel Ocean proud. They face hardened criminals from one direction and single-minded law enforcement from another direction. They’re between The Rock and a hard place, so to speak. So, in order to get out, Toretto, O’Connor, Mia and their newly formed gang have to do what they do best: put the pedal to the metal.
What “Fast Five” lacks in brains it (almost) makes up for in brawn. Although this movie lacks a smart screenplay, it’s okay, because there is not enough talking in the movie to make the dialogue noticeably irritating. Although the acting is often tough to watch, the actors hardly ever are. And although the plot is a bit shaky and chaotic, it’s fairly easy to be distracted to forgetfulness by the high-octane action and special effects.
In the end, I don’t quite know what I want from a movie like “Fast Five”. I suspect that those who love this genre, and who particularly love the previous “Fast” movies, will be very happy with this movie. I also suspect that those who cannot stand movies with a lot of senseless action, nature-bending stunts and little else, will be dissatisfied with or at least indifferent to “Fast Five”. But there is probably also a borderline class of moviegoers who are open-minded about being bombarded with absurd action, and I think that even some of those people will like “Fast Five”. This is no doubt the mark of this movie’s success.
Coastal View News
You could probably imagine what it would be like if Vin Diesel fought Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson. Limbs and torsos would writhe and tangle. A lot of stuff would be broken. Things would happen that couldn’t possibly happen. And there would be an utter lack of sensible dialogue. Yet—and I am slightly embarrassed to say this—it would be fun to watch. And the same things can be said of “Fast Five”. This movie is well over the top. It’s absurd, actually. But in spite of this (or perhaps because of it), “Fast Five” is pretty enjoyable.
After years of running (or driving) afoul of the law, Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) is sentenced to prison. So, naturally, the absurdity—and enjoyment—begins when Toretto is (literally) busted out of a jail bus by Brian O’Connor (Paul Walker) and Mia (Jordana Brewster). The crew hightail it to Rio de Janeiro and lay low. That is, for a day or two. But before they have a moment to downshift, Toretto, O’Connor, and Mia are caught up in an ill-conceived heist that almost gets them killed, and does get three U. S. government agents killed.
Hence, the first miracle on the crew’s way to automotive un-sainthood is driving away from the smoldering wreckage that swallows up everyone else. Their second miracle—if they can pull it off—will be to elude the clutches of U. S. special agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson). Toretto, O’Connor and Mia are fast, but Hobbs and his heavy-hitting law enforcement thugs are right on their tail.
And then comes another twist. Toretto, O’Connor and Mia come across highly valuable information concerning the dealings of Reyes (Joaquim de Almeida), the kingpin of Rio’s drug-driven underbelly. Emboldened by a mix of self-righteousness and testosterone, the crew decides to use this information to lift Reyes’ ill-gotten treasure. They assemble a team—the best of the best—and hatch a scheme that would make Daniel Ocean proud. They face hardened criminals from one direction and single-minded law enforcement from another direction. They’re between The Rock and a hard place, so to speak. So, in order to get out, Toretto, O’Connor, Mia and their newly formed gang have to do what they do best: put the pedal to the metal.
What “Fast Five” lacks in brains it (almost) makes up for in brawn. Although this movie lacks a smart screenplay, it’s okay, because there is not enough talking in the movie to make the dialogue noticeably irritating. Although the acting is often tough to watch, the actors hardly ever are. And although the plot is a bit shaky and chaotic, it’s fairly easy to be distracted to forgetfulness by the high-octane action and special effects.
In the end, I don’t quite know what I want from a movie like “Fast Five”. I suspect that those who love this genre, and who particularly love the previous “Fast” movies, will be very happy with this movie. I also suspect that those who cannot stand movies with a lot of senseless action, nature-bending stunts and little else, will be dissatisfied with or at least indifferent to “Fast Five”. But there is probably also a borderline class of moviegoers who are open-minded about being bombarded with absurd action, and I think that even some of those people will like “Fast Five”. This is no doubt the mark of this movie’s success.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
"Source Code"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Imagine waking up in a place that you have never even seen before. Everyone else seems to know why you are where you are, but you don’t have a clue. You don’t know where you are, why you are there, or how you got there. This is the “Source Code” experience. Both the main character and we, the audience, are together in the dark, clawing around for clues and answers. This makes “Source Code” both inventive and fun, at least for a while.
When Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train just outside of Chicago, he is both confused and startled. He is confused because he has no recollection whatsoever of getting on the train, or of being anywhere near Chicago. Colter is startled because, as he becomes conscious of his surroundings, it is obvious that he is not where he is supposed to be. For one thing, the woman sitting across from him on the train—whose name turns out to be ‘Christina’ (Michelle Monaghan)—calls him “Sean” and talks to him as if he were her friend. Colter tries to make sense of his situation. He scrambles for answers. But before he can get a grip, his train explodes—a giant fireball engulfs him, Christina, and everyone else.
But Colter does not die. Rather, he wakes up strapped to a chair in some sort of pod. A video monitor crackles to life and a woman named ‘Goodwin’ (Vera Farmiga), who is dressed in military attire, begins to speak to him. Colter begs for answers, but Goodwin leaves him (as well as the audience) in the dark. All that Colter knows is that he is on a special mission, and that his task is to find out who bombed the train that he was just on.
Then Colter is sent back to the train; he wakes up, just as he did before, across from Christina. Still trying to figure out what is going on, Colter wastes time and energy, and so is once again caught up in the explosion. Time and time again Colter is jolted back to his pod and then sent back to the train. With each trip to the train, Colter comes closer to discovering who the bomber is, and with each trip back to the pod, Colter learns a bit more about the mission and why it was assigned to him.
Colter discovers that he is part of an experimental program in which he taps into the memory traces of someone who has just died. Colter literally relives someone else’s life. The point of this program is to find out information about an event—the explosion, in this case—that only a person who was there would have access to. The U. S. government needs this information because they know that the bomber will attack again soon. Colter’s job is to find out who the bomber is so that this terrorist can be apprehended before it is too late.
The idea behind “Source Code” is inventive and interesting. Although its premise relies on some shakily described science and technology, this movie mostly maintains the minimal threshold of plausibility that is required for the audience to engage with the story. That is, until the end. Unfortunately, at the end, the sort of “anything goes” character of pop physics takes a hold of the plot and runs away with it. And that is both perplexing and frustrating.
But what’s fun about this movie is how we (the audience) get to figure things out at the same time that Colter figures them out. It is as if we, the audience, are being transported back and forth from the train to the pod. Colter knows little more than we do, and as a result, the mystery somehow seems more real. But there is a downside to riding alongside Colter. Being sent back and forth gets tedious—at least, that is, from the audience’s side of the screen. We see the same scene over and over again, and that gets tiring.
In all, “Source Code” is an amusing movie that is worth seeing one time. It does not have much lasting appeal, and the plot gets a bit sloppy at times, but this movie is nonetheless thought provoking and fairly entertaining.
Coastal View News
Imagine waking up in a place that you have never even seen before. Everyone else seems to know why you are where you are, but you don’t have a clue. You don’t know where you are, why you are there, or how you got there. This is the “Source Code” experience. Both the main character and we, the audience, are together in the dark, clawing around for clues and answers. This makes “Source Code” both inventive and fun, at least for a while.
When Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up on a train just outside of Chicago, he is both confused and startled. He is confused because he has no recollection whatsoever of getting on the train, or of being anywhere near Chicago. Colter is startled because, as he becomes conscious of his surroundings, it is obvious that he is not where he is supposed to be. For one thing, the woman sitting across from him on the train—whose name turns out to be ‘Christina’ (Michelle Monaghan)—calls him “Sean” and talks to him as if he were her friend. Colter tries to make sense of his situation. He scrambles for answers. But before he can get a grip, his train explodes—a giant fireball engulfs him, Christina, and everyone else.
But Colter does not die. Rather, he wakes up strapped to a chair in some sort of pod. A video monitor crackles to life and a woman named ‘Goodwin’ (Vera Farmiga), who is dressed in military attire, begins to speak to him. Colter begs for answers, but Goodwin leaves him (as well as the audience) in the dark. All that Colter knows is that he is on a special mission, and that his task is to find out who bombed the train that he was just on.
Then Colter is sent back to the train; he wakes up, just as he did before, across from Christina. Still trying to figure out what is going on, Colter wastes time and energy, and so is once again caught up in the explosion. Time and time again Colter is jolted back to his pod and then sent back to the train. With each trip to the train, Colter comes closer to discovering who the bomber is, and with each trip back to the pod, Colter learns a bit more about the mission and why it was assigned to him.
Colter discovers that he is part of an experimental program in which he taps into the memory traces of someone who has just died. Colter literally relives someone else’s life. The point of this program is to find out information about an event—the explosion, in this case—that only a person who was there would have access to. The U. S. government needs this information because they know that the bomber will attack again soon. Colter’s job is to find out who the bomber is so that this terrorist can be apprehended before it is too late.
The idea behind “Source Code” is inventive and interesting. Although its premise relies on some shakily described science and technology, this movie mostly maintains the minimal threshold of plausibility that is required for the audience to engage with the story. That is, until the end. Unfortunately, at the end, the sort of “anything goes” character of pop physics takes a hold of the plot and runs away with it. And that is both perplexing and frustrating.
But what’s fun about this movie is how we (the audience) get to figure things out at the same time that Colter figures them out. It is as if we, the audience, are being transported back and forth from the train to the pod. Colter knows little more than we do, and as a result, the mystery somehow seems more real. But there is a downside to riding alongside Colter. Being sent back and forth gets tedious—at least, that is, from the audience’s side of the screen. We see the same scene over and over again, and that gets tiring.
In all, “Source Code” is an amusing movie that is worth seeing one time. It does not have much lasting appeal, and the plot gets a bit sloppy at times, but this movie is nonetheless thought provoking and fairly entertaining.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
"Hall Pass"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
It is a truism that even the best of marriages are not always a walk in the park. The onus that comes with such a commitment can of course be challenging to bear. It can be easy to imagine how things could have been different.
These things are true of marriage, and unfortunately, they are also true of “Hall Pass”. Despite a likeable cast and a promising premise, this movie is not altogether easy to endure.
Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) are two middle-aged boys who are each suffering from marital doldrums. Although their wives—Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate), respectively—are beautiful, loving and kind, the eyes and minds of Rick and Fred are nonetheless prone to wander. They imagine what their lives would be like if they were single; they picture droves of gorgeous women throwing themselves at their feet. They seem to think that, if only they were free to play the field, they would have endless scoring opportunities.
Maggie and Grace cannot help but be embarrassed by the outward manifestations of Rick and Fred’s active fantasy lives and deluded swagger. However, confident that their husbands will in fact strike out if they are given a chance to swing away, Maggie and Grace decide to give them a “hall pass”. Rick and Fred’s hall pass comes in the form of a week off from marriage—a week to do whatever they want without any consequences. Rick and Fred gratefully accept their hall passes, fully expecting to get laid more times in a week than they had in all of the prior decade.
But, even with the help of their equally pathetic forty-something friends, Rick and Fred quickly realize that picking up beautiful women is not as easy as they remembered. They go to all of the wrong places and make all of the wrong moves. In fact, their most noteworthy accomplishment turns out to be the dizzying pace at which they are able to repel women.
Nonetheless, by the end of the week Rick and Fred manage to turn their luck around. After virtually reinventing the wheel, they finally move in on a couple of good-looking (if not altogether savory) women. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are, much to their surprise, finding new suitors of their own. And so the wives quickly realize that their husbands are not the only ones who were longing for some kind of change. Rick, Fred, Maggie and Grace must each figure out what is more important: dedication to their respective spouses, or the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take advantage of a hall pass.
Unfortunately, “Hall Pass” is not, in general, funny. Nor is it particularly interesting, thought-provoking, true-to-life, or amusing. The concept behind “Hall Pass” could have made for a worthwhile movie, not of course because any thoughtful couple would consider a hall pass to be a productive marital experiment, but because this movie had a chance to play on the complicated psychology that comes with being married. But directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly turn an interesting concept into a painful and annoying march through emotional and intellectual bankruptcy. It could have been funny to see how being off the market causes Rick and Fred to foster delusions of sexual grandeur. But it wasn’t. There could have been a compelling moral in the way each spouse comes to realize that the costs of playing the field outweigh the benefits. But there wasn’t.
Maybe my hopes were too high for this movie (though that is tough to imagine). But I cannot see how my hopes could have been so modest that they would not have been let down by “Hall Pass”. Even actors who are normally reliable came up short. Owen Wilson, for instance, is normally the height of funny. But in “Hall Pass” he’s not. So it is at times painful to watch Wilson, with his boyish grin and high-pitched voice, trying to turn an intrinsically flat script into something dynamic and charming. Unfortunately, Wilson’s climb is too steep.
By my count, “Hall Pass” has one very funny line (at the very end) and a handful of somewhat funny moments. This does not add up to a good comedy.
Coastal View News
It is a truism that even the best of marriages are not always a walk in the park. The onus that comes with such a commitment can of course be challenging to bear. It can be easy to imagine how things could have been different.
These things are true of marriage, and unfortunately, they are also true of “Hall Pass”. Despite a likeable cast and a promising premise, this movie is not altogether easy to endure.
Rick (Owen Wilson) and Fred (Jason Sudeikis) are two middle-aged boys who are each suffering from marital doldrums. Although their wives—Maggie (Jenna Fischer) and Grace (Christina Applegate), respectively—are beautiful, loving and kind, the eyes and minds of Rick and Fred are nonetheless prone to wander. They imagine what their lives would be like if they were single; they picture droves of gorgeous women throwing themselves at their feet. They seem to think that, if only they were free to play the field, they would have endless scoring opportunities.
Maggie and Grace cannot help but be embarrassed by the outward manifestations of Rick and Fred’s active fantasy lives and deluded swagger. However, confident that their husbands will in fact strike out if they are given a chance to swing away, Maggie and Grace decide to give them a “hall pass”. Rick and Fred’s hall pass comes in the form of a week off from marriage—a week to do whatever they want without any consequences. Rick and Fred gratefully accept their hall passes, fully expecting to get laid more times in a week than they had in all of the prior decade.
But, even with the help of their equally pathetic forty-something friends, Rick and Fred quickly realize that picking up beautiful women is not as easy as they remembered. They go to all of the wrong places and make all of the wrong moves. In fact, their most noteworthy accomplishment turns out to be the dizzying pace at which they are able to repel women.
Nonetheless, by the end of the week Rick and Fred manage to turn their luck around. After virtually reinventing the wheel, they finally move in on a couple of good-looking (if not altogether savory) women. Meanwhile, Maggie and Grace are, much to their surprise, finding new suitors of their own. And so the wives quickly realize that their husbands are not the only ones who were longing for some kind of change. Rick, Fred, Maggie and Grace must each figure out what is more important: dedication to their respective spouses, or the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take advantage of a hall pass.
Unfortunately, “Hall Pass” is not, in general, funny. Nor is it particularly interesting, thought-provoking, true-to-life, or amusing. The concept behind “Hall Pass” could have made for a worthwhile movie, not of course because any thoughtful couple would consider a hall pass to be a productive marital experiment, but because this movie had a chance to play on the complicated psychology that comes with being married. But directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly turn an interesting concept into a painful and annoying march through emotional and intellectual bankruptcy. It could have been funny to see how being off the market causes Rick and Fred to foster delusions of sexual grandeur. But it wasn’t. There could have been a compelling moral in the way each spouse comes to realize that the costs of playing the field outweigh the benefits. But there wasn’t.
Maybe my hopes were too high for this movie (though that is tough to imagine). But I cannot see how my hopes could have been so modest that they would not have been let down by “Hall Pass”. Even actors who are normally reliable came up short. Owen Wilson, for instance, is normally the height of funny. But in “Hall Pass” he’s not. So it is at times painful to watch Wilson, with his boyish grin and high-pitched voice, trying to turn an intrinsically flat script into something dynamic and charming. Unfortunately, Wilson’s climb is too steep.
By my count, “Hall Pass” has one very funny line (at the very end) and a handful of somewhat funny moments. This does not add up to a good comedy.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
"The King's Speech"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
Sometimes little details make a big difference, and simple plots make for complex stories. “The King’s Speech”, which is nominated for 12 Oscars (more than any other movie this year), is a perfect illustration. And regardless of whether the attention it is getting is wholly deserved, this movie is thoroughly charming, well executed and, at times, moving.
Albert (Colin Firth), Duke of York and second in line to the throne of England, has a stammering problem. He is a gifted statesman and lucid thinker, but when Albert opens his mouth, his voice fails him. Albert’s jaw tightens up, a harsh guttural noise issues from his throat, and only seldom are words actually produced.
Because he is a duke—the second son of King George V—Albert is required to make public appearances and, every so often, he is asked to give a speech. But despite constant urging from his father and continual help from the best speech pathologists Britain has to offer, Albert flounders in front of the microphone.
After having seen countless doctors and elocutionists, Albert is goaded by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), into seeing speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel comes off as smart and witty, but his unorthodox methods do not initially meet with Albert’s satisfaction. Lionel asks Albert to perform various (often goofy) physical exercises, while also hinting that Albert’s problem is deeper than physical.
As they work and talk through a wide array of issues, Lionel and Albert become friends. Albert’s rehabilitation is slow and intermittent, but also encouraging. So long as he avoids too much pressure, Albert is able to give passable speeches here and there. Nonetheless, Albert’s feels fortunate that it is his older brother, David (Guy Pierce), and not him, who is set to be thrust into the limelight and onto the throne when their father dies.
Yet, whatever oratorical advantages David possesses are more than offset by his foolhardiness, indifference to the responsibilities that come with the crown, and ignorance of political and foreign affairs. When he is finally crowned King Edward VIII, David’s party guests and love interests capture his attention more often than does his exasperated brother or the impatient British government. As a consequence, Albert begins to realize that he may soon have to take over for his brother. He may be king after all.
With World War II looming, and with countless other domestic and foreign stresses confronting his nation, there is nothing that Albert fears more than the prospect of giving a speech. The mere thought of addressing his people as king seems to make his throat swell. But when he is finally crowned King George VI, Albert must, with the help of Lionel, find a way to rise to his greatest challenge.
“The King’s Speech” is slow and surprisingly simple. It does not contain many (if any) particularly emotional or triumphant moments. More tea is poured than arms drawn, and you are likely to see more special effects in a home video.
And yet, there is something remarkable about this movie. Somehow one man’s stammering is dramatic. Somehow, despite their strict adherence to stiff British etiquette, Albert and Lionel’s relationship is tender, complex, and even stirring. Somehow, “The King’s Speech” is more than the sum of its parts.
Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve most of the credit for the artistic success of this movie. Firth does a marvelous job of communicating how maddening a seemingly small problem can be, and Rush’s cool-headed performance exhibits a perfect balance of patience and wit. I don’t know if “The King’s Speech” is the best picture of the year, but it certainly includes some of the year’s best performances.
Coastal View News
Sometimes little details make a big difference, and simple plots make for complex stories. “The King’s Speech”, which is nominated for 12 Oscars (more than any other movie this year), is a perfect illustration. And regardless of whether the attention it is getting is wholly deserved, this movie is thoroughly charming, well executed and, at times, moving.
Albert (Colin Firth), Duke of York and second in line to the throne of England, has a stammering problem. He is a gifted statesman and lucid thinker, but when Albert opens his mouth, his voice fails him. Albert’s jaw tightens up, a harsh guttural noise issues from his throat, and only seldom are words actually produced.
Because he is a duke—the second son of King George V—Albert is required to make public appearances and, every so often, he is asked to give a speech. But despite constant urging from his father and continual help from the best speech pathologists Britain has to offer, Albert flounders in front of the microphone.
After having seen countless doctors and elocutionists, Albert is goaded by his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), into seeing speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Lionel comes off as smart and witty, but his unorthodox methods do not initially meet with Albert’s satisfaction. Lionel asks Albert to perform various (often goofy) physical exercises, while also hinting that Albert’s problem is deeper than physical.
As they work and talk through a wide array of issues, Lionel and Albert become friends. Albert’s rehabilitation is slow and intermittent, but also encouraging. So long as he avoids too much pressure, Albert is able to give passable speeches here and there. Nonetheless, Albert’s feels fortunate that it is his older brother, David (Guy Pierce), and not him, who is set to be thrust into the limelight and onto the throne when their father dies.
Yet, whatever oratorical advantages David possesses are more than offset by his foolhardiness, indifference to the responsibilities that come with the crown, and ignorance of political and foreign affairs. When he is finally crowned King Edward VIII, David’s party guests and love interests capture his attention more often than does his exasperated brother or the impatient British government. As a consequence, Albert begins to realize that he may soon have to take over for his brother. He may be king after all.
With World War II looming, and with countless other domestic and foreign stresses confronting his nation, there is nothing that Albert fears more than the prospect of giving a speech. The mere thought of addressing his people as king seems to make his throat swell. But when he is finally crowned King George VI, Albert must, with the help of Lionel, find a way to rise to his greatest challenge.
“The King’s Speech” is slow and surprisingly simple. It does not contain many (if any) particularly emotional or triumphant moments. More tea is poured than arms drawn, and you are likely to see more special effects in a home video.
And yet, there is something remarkable about this movie. Somehow one man’s stammering is dramatic. Somehow, despite their strict adherence to stiff British etiquette, Albert and Lionel’s relationship is tender, complex, and even stirring. Somehow, “The King’s Speech” is more than the sum of its parts.
Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush deserve most of the credit for the artistic success of this movie. Firth does a marvelous job of communicating how maddening a seemingly small problem can be, and Rush’s cool-headed performance exhibits a perfect balance of patience and wit. I don’t know if “The King’s Speech” is the best picture of the year, but it certainly includes some of the year’s best performances.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
"Black Swan"
By Matt Duncan
Coastal View News
“Black Swan” is the story of an artist’s desperation for perfection. It depicts the tirelessness, obsession and madness that is required for her—and, indeed, for any artist—to be better than the rest. This movie is a thoroughly remarkable cinematic achievement, especially for its director and actors. “Black Swan” is one of the best movies of 2010 and a worthy start to the new year.
“Black Swan” is about a talented but aging ballet dancer named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). Nina is the hardest working and most technically proficient member of her company, but she struggles to land major roles because she has difficulty exhibiting the kind of carefree and passionate lust for dancing that wins over audiences. For Nina, dancing is not simply an artistic expression; it is her career, her obsession, her life.
In contrast, Lily (Mila Kunis), who is the newest member of the ballet company, is not as technically gifted a dancer as Nina, but when she dances, she lets loose—she shows the warmth and élan that is absent from Nina’s repertoire.
As the new season opens, “Swan Lake” is scheduled to be the ballet company’s first performance. In this ballet, the lead dancer must master two parts: the pure and elegant White Swan, and her evil twin, the Black Swan. Nina is perfect for the role of the White Swan, and Lily is well suited for the Black Swan. But one dancer must play both roles.
Desperate for the lead role, Nina takes her obsession for perfection to a new level. She practices constantly and strives to master the Black Swan, all while keeping an eye on her competition. Nina makes progress toward her goal, but at the cost of losing her grip on reality. As the opening of “Swan Lake” approaches, Nina must ward off a whole host of challenges, including Lily, her overprotective mother and her own inner demons. Nina’s desperation for mastering the Black Swan threatens to dissolve her mastery over the purity and innocence she once embodied.
“Black Swan” is hardly what one would expect from a movie about ballet. It is edgy and visceral; both gripping and psychotic. Although this movie seamlessly weaves the drama of “Swan Lake” into its plot and score, “Black Swan” is really a horror story. This movie shows that, while competition and obsession do breed drama, they can also give rise to gruesome horrors.
In nearly all of its facets, “Black Swan” is powerful and captivating. Director Darren Aronofsky (who also directed “The Wrestler”) has a special flare for drawing out the behind-the-scenes struggles of entertainers who are grasping for success. He has a talent for portraying the unique battles and insights that come with an obsessive need to please others. Although audiences (of either film or ballet) typically care only about whether the end product that they see is flawless and entertaining, Aronofsky gives his audience a sense of the cost of their (that is to say, our) demands. We see that perfection requires an extremely narrow focus, an obsession with detail, an ignorance of the value of a balanced life, and, indeed, a sort of insanity. Hard work is not the only price that one must pay in order to be great.
“Black Swan” is interesting, and it is extremely well-acted. Natalie Portman’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and both Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel (who plays the director of “Swan Lake”) provide admirable support. The combination of great acting and Aronofsky’s thematic and cinematic achievements make “Black Swan” a very well rounded movie. It is captivating even when it is not altogether pleasing to watch. So while it is not for the faint of heart, “Black Swan” is, in my view, one of the best movies of 2010.
Coastal View News
“Black Swan” is the story of an artist’s desperation for perfection. It depicts the tirelessness, obsession and madness that is required for her—and, indeed, for any artist—to be better than the rest. This movie is a thoroughly remarkable cinematic achievement, especially for its director and actors. “Black Swan” is one of the best movies of 2010 and a worthy start to the new year.
“Black Swan” is about a talented but aging ballet dancer named Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman). Nina is the hardest working and most technically proficient member of her company, but she struggles to land major roles because she has difficulty exhibiting the kind of carefree and passionate lust for dancing that wins over audiences. For Nina, dancing is not simply an artistic expression; it is her career, her obsession, her life.
In contrast, Lily (Mila Kunis), who is the newest member of the ballet company, is not as technically gifted a dancer as Nina, but when she dances, she lets loose—she shows the warmth and élan that is absent from Nina’s repertoire.
As the new season opens, “Swan Lake” is scheduled to be the ballet company’s first performance. In this ballet, the lead dancer must master two parts: the pure and elegant White Swan, and her evil twin, the Black Swan. Nina is perfect for the role of the White Swan, and Lily is well suited for the Black Swan. But one dancer must play both roles.
Desperate for the lead role, Nina takes her obsession for perfection to a new level. She practices constantly and strives to master the Black Swan, all while keeping an eye on her competition. Nina makes progress toward her goal, but at the cost of losing her grip on reality. As the opening of “Swan Lake” approaches, Nina must ward off a whole host of challenges, including Lily, her overprotective mother and her own inner demons. Nina’s desperation for mastering the Black Swan threatens to dissolve her mastery over the purity and innocence she once embodied.
“Black Swan” is hardly what one would expect from a movie about ballet. It is edgy and visceral; both gripping and psychotic. Although this movie seamlessly weaves the drama of “Swan Lake” into its plot and score, “Black Swan” is really a horror story. This movie shows that, while competition and obsession do breed drama, they can also give rise to gruesome horrors.
In nearly all of its facets, “Black Swan” is powerful and captivating. Director Darren Aronofsky (who also directed “The Wrestler”) has a special flare for drawing out the behind-the-scenes struggles of entertainers who are grasping for success. He has a talent for portraying the unique battles and insights that come with an obsessive need to please others. Although audiences (of either film or ballet) typically care only about whether the end product that they see is flawless and entertaining, Aronofsky gives his audience a sense of the cost of their (that is to say, our) demands. We see that perfection requires an extremely narrow focus, an obsession with detail, an ignorance of the value of a balanced life, and, indeed, a sort of insanity. Hard work is not the only price that one must pay in order to be great.
“Black Swan” is interesting, and it is extremely well-acted. Natalie Portman’s performance is Oscar-worthy, and both Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel (who plays the director of “Swan Lake”) provide admirable support. The combination of great acting and Aronofsky’s thematic and cinematic achievements make “Black Swan” a very well rounded movie. It is captivating even when it is not altogether pleasing to watch. So while it is not for the faint of heart, “Black Swan” is, in my view, one of the best movies of 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)