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 Whereas Cal’s clothes are out of date and two sizes too big, Jacob’s style is immaculate and his wardrobe is impeccable.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”.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
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)