My Week with Marilyn… Spectacular Meets Droll
By theredraylives | February 26, 2012
My Week with Marilyn
dir. Simon Curtis
Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Judy Dench, Eddie Redmayne
Three and a half out of Five Stars
Like so many awards season films, My Week with Marilyn is a confounding mixture of fantastic performances and muddled cinema. The performances make the entire film, but the plot itself is really rather uninteresting and bland. Everyone already knows that Marilyn Monroe was the most famous woman in the world, everyone knows how beautiful but troubled she was. It then falls to Simon Curtis to create a film out of a brief slice of her life that somehow captures her, captures the sense of making The Prince and the Showgirl, and captures Monroe’s ability to captivate. The film does great service to its characters, but were this a film about anyone but Monroe it would be a colossal dud- and this is where it fails.
My Week with Marilyn follows Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne), third assistant director on the set of The Prince and the Showgirl, which teamed Marilyn Monroe with the legendary Laurence Olivier (the captivating Kenneth Branagh). During that time Clark- a nobody- meets the newly-married Monroe and her husband, Arthur Miller (the author of one of the greatest modern-day masterpieces). Tensions mount on set, Olivier is driven to near-madness trying to manage the film with Monroe, and all the while Colin falls under Monroe’s enchanting spell- though reality (and others around her) warn him of the impending doom, he forges ahead anyway, and ends up at the end of his storied week with a broken heart (and losing Emma Watson, which is its own punishment many times over).
As plots go, Colin’s isn’t very entertaining to watch, nor is it very interesting. As an audience, we know that Monroe didn’t run off into the English countryside with a 3rd A.D., and Redmayne’s smitten, puppy-love performance isn’t all that endearing (regardless of how much truth is in the telling). In fact, when he’s on-screen- even with Monroe- the scenes are eye-rolling at best. As previously stated, were this a film about Colin Clark falling in love with Random Girl 7, it would be an absolute bore from beginning to end.
What saves it, then, are the fantastic performances of Branagh and Michelle Williams. As Olivier, Branagh is excellent (and Academy-Award nominated). He somehow manages to avoid taking the role over the top, instead choosing to directly focus on Olivier’s desire to get the film made and his frustrations over Marilyn’s set antics. One never doubts him for a minute, and as Olivier he exudes power, but whenever Monroe is on the screen with him he almost tries to fight for his star to shine brighter. The supporting cast is, for the most part, just sort of there- excluding Dame Judy Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike, who helps to comfort the unsettled and nerve-wracked Monroe as she works on the film. She is fantastic, and commands immediate respect the moment she steps on-screen.
The supporting cast and the plot are merely accessories to the main attraction- to Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe. As someone who didn’t follow Monroe’s career, this reviewer can’t pretend to say that Williams got it exactly right, so let’s leave that to the film historians. That said, Williams plays Monroe here with such beauty, strength, fear, and innocence that one cannot help but get lost in her performance (which she won a Golden Globe for, and is also up for Oscar). She becomes Monroe in every frame, drawing one in with her powerful characterization. She doesn’t simply look pretty or focus on one aspect of Monroe’s storied and tragic career- she allows the entire thing to envelop her and pours it out on-screen in every frame. Certainly a difficult role to play for any actress, but Williams throws herself into it and does it effortlessly. This is acting at its best, and judging by her resume of late, Williams is only getting better.
Ultimately, the film is about Monroe, and no one is going to see the film for any other reason. If only it could have been in a better film. As the lead, Redmayne isn’t all that engaging, and his naïvety grows thin rather quickly. It may be that the history has already been written, but his pursuit of Monroe, falling for her, and wanting to take her away from everything- they are utterly meaningless at the beginning as well as the end. One can’t help but wish that Williams had played Monroe in a much better film about her, but for now, she gets to be a diamond among the (mostly) rough. Three and a half out of Five Stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
If you haven’t, you can check out the trailer. For a bit of fun, also check out the trailer for The Prince and the Showgirl here! Please check out this and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. Want to become my fanboy/girl? You can follow me on Twitter or book my face, and you can subscribe to my reviews. In just about six hours I’ll be live-blogging the Oscars right here on Black Entertainment USA… please join me! “I like how you can compliment and insult somebody at the same time, in equal measure.”
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Malick’s Tree of Life is an Overindulgent Mess
By theredraylives | February 25, 2012
Tree of Life
dir. Terrence Malick
Brad Pitt, Sean Penn, Jessica Chastain
Two out of Five Stars
Close your eyes. Now imagine that writer/director Terrence Malick (this guy) is walking up to you holding a revolver in his hand. It’s dark, there’s no one else around… it’s just the two of you. You’re paralyzed, not from fear or confusion, but from some toxin that you’re sure has been laced throughout your system and you can’t entirely remember why. He is right in front of you now. He pulls up his arm; a glimmer of light shines off the revolver, the sudden brightness overwhelming your eyes. He cocks the gun, saying nothing, booming classical music erupting all around you. He then fires every single one of the six shots in rapid succession, directly into your forehead. The last thing you see is an explosion of blood, the last sound you hear the swelling orchestra, and there stands Malick, still holding the smoking revolver. After sitting through ‘Tree of Life,’ this is exactly what you’ll wish you’d sat through instead.
Tree of Life is, in no uncertain terms, a cinematic labyrinth. It is pretentious to the point of ridiculousness, it spends huge chunks of screentime on colossal metaphors and thematic similarities that have next to nothing to do with the narrative, and is half narrated by whispers that are barely audible, particularly when the volume is cranked down after the thunderous and booming classical score. It is a film that intends to be deep and intuitive, it is beautifully shot but each and every shot is more meaningless than the last- okay, that’s not entirely fair. Each shot is rich and full of meaning, but it’s all the same meaning. It is thematically bloated and overindulgent, and clearly the narrative means little to Malick as he deviates from it constantly to bombard the audience with more thematic similarities and metaphors. A much better experience might be listening to the score in a dark room. One must imagine that somewhere in the process of making Tree of Life, the whole thing escaped Malick, and he just kept going because no one told him to stop.
The narrative follows Jack O’Brien (Sean Penn), whose complex relationship with his father (Brad Pitt) and the death of his brother has haunted him his entire life. His is a struggle to come to terms with who he is, with his relationship with his father, and to accept his brother’s death. The film is thick with religious allegory as well, as the family struggles with the “decision” made by god to take away their son, and they must come to terms with this and forgive god for his death. As a narrative alone it is full of promise and is actually not executed terribly. Malick is clearly a director with a vision and his use of metaphor and extensive visual imagery to tell this story is an excellent tool. The problem with the film stems from the fact that Malick is like a little kid trapped in a candy store, in that no matter how much his stomach hurts he keeps shoveling in mouthful after mouthful of candy. The film interrupts the narrative constantly to go on and on with extended metaphors about the story’s many themes, extended metaphors about the characters and their story arcs, and at one point to go on what must be a 25 minute journey to chronicle the beginning of life and existence as we know it (all as a massive compliment to the theme of life and death, specifically to show that in the universe, things are “born” and things “die” literally all the time as part of the natural cycle of life- something that the family has to come to terms with to accept the younger brother’s death). It is mind-numbing to sit through. The metaphor this review opens with is exactly what watching this film feels like- only the gun is this movie, and the bullets are the metaphors, and Malick just keeps re-loading. One can shoot something in the face 50 times, but the first or second shot is probably going to be enough to kill it.
The film is not entirely void of merit. Pitt in particular gives a great performance as Mr. O’Brien, the father who gave up his dreams to struggle in a world where he simply cannot be victorious. Penn is great as well, even though he has no actual spoken lines in the film (all of his lines are voice-over narration throughout the film). The film is certainly beautifully shot. When the film goes from scene to scene all of the shots are fantastic. The best part of the entire film has to be its music, however, which is a score rich with classical music from the likes of Bach and Mozart. It is raw and emotional and, despite how overindulgent a good deal of the shots in the film are, it complements them perfectly. The only point of contention is about the sound mixing, which is all over the place- the whispered narration laced through the film is extremely quiet, while the score is incredibly loud, so expect to adjust the volume several times during the viewing of this film.
It is, quite simply, a shame that this film wasn’t more streamlined and cut down better. Metaphor and long, drawn-out sequences about heavy themes such as the ones in this film are wonderful when they’re done in moderation. A word this review keeps coming back to is overindulgent- no one word can better sum up Tree of Life. Somewhere in this colossal mess is a brilliant film, but somewhere between the plesiosaur staring at the gaping wound in its back and a shot of Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain) “giving her son to god” (and accepting his death) being shown at least 5 times, it was lost. Lucky for that plesiosaur, it went extinct millions of years before this film was made, so it did not have to waste two and a half hours that it will never get back. Two out of Five Stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
Still planning on indulging in overindulgence? Check out the trailer. You can find this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. Also, be sure to follow along on Black Entertainment USA as I live-blog the Oscars! Coverage begins at 6:00 PM on Oscar Sunday!! See you there!!!!
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
The Rush to the Oscars… A Better Life is nearly indescribable
By theredraylives | February 24, 2012
A Better Life
dir. Chris Weitz
Demián Bichir, José Julián, Dolores Heredia
Five out of Five Stars
A touching film about a hot political issue that doesn’t make a statement about it, A Better Life (check out the trailer) is a wonderful film about making dreams come true, becoming someone, and hitting rock bottom. It is also a fantastic film about fathers and sons. Unfortunately because of its subject matter, it is likely that the film will be largely ignored by some and harshly criticized by others who rail against the fact that Carlos (the wonderful Demián Bichir) is an illegal alien- those who do so will miss a fantastic performance in one of the year’s best films. A Better Life doesn’t tell you whether or not Carlos is right or wrong in being an illegal- it simply asks what a father might do for his son, and what he might do when he’s lost everything to get some of it back. NOTE: Spoilers to follow.
The film centers around Carlos, an illegal living in Los Angeles with his 14-year-old son Luis (the equally amazing José Julián). Carlos has worked for years helping his friend Blasco (Joaquín Cosio) with his lawncare business. Now, Blasco is going back home to Mexico, and Carlos is left to decide whether he’ll buy Blasco’s truck and continue the business, or whether he’ll wade back onto the streets to find a better opportunity. From here the film is one heartbreaking setback after another- he borrows money from his sister Anita (Dolores Heredia) to buy the truck and does so. He picks up a friendly laborer named Santiago (Carlos Linares), who had shown him kindness earlier, to help him. Santiago ends up stealing the truck.
Throughout the film, Luis is enticed by the gang lifestyle, where he sees the power and attitude he is desperate to emulate. He is equally desperate not to end up on a street corner waiting for passersby to offer him work- exactly who his father is. Throughout the course of the film he accompanies his father in the quest to find Santiago and get the truck back, and in so doing learns who his father really is and the struggles he has had to go through in order to give his son some kind of a life.
The entire film hinges on the performance of Bichir and he does not disappoint (and is nominated for an Academy Award for his work, in fact). He has infused Carlos with so much humanity, so much strength and sadness that it is impossible while watching the film to root against him. He buys the truck because he knows that, with a little time and a little luck, he can get his papers and become legal, and can make a better life for his son- when the truck is stolen, it all falls apart. His dream isn’t to be rich, his dream isn’t to have a mansion or to be famous. He simply wants to leave his mark on the world and on Luis, and to create an opportunity for him that he never had. With each victory, the heart warms- with each setback, one feels his pain. His is the pain of anyone who has ever dreamed of a better life for their children only to have the harsh reality of life send them crashing back to Earth, but like any father Carlos refuses to quit and keeps fighting, always working toward a better future. Bichir brings all of this to bear in his portrayal, and it is truly heart-rending.
The film is well-directed by Chris Weitz, well paced, well written, edited, and shot. It is beautifully atmospheric, and all of the locations and the music really help give the film a fantastic realism. Everything about this film is so well done, from the opening right down to the ending. It’s sad that this film isn’t receiving more consideration this Oscar season, but Bichir has certainly earned his place among the nominees for Best Actor in 2012. Five out of Five Stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
Once again, don’t forget about the trailer. You can find this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. Also, be sure to follow along on Black Entertainment USA as I live-blog the Oscars! Coverage begins at 6:00 PM on Oscar Sunday!! See you there!!!! “The other night I had a dream and it was very real. Your mother was there and you were there and your aunt Estelle. And there was a… well, it wasn’t really a spaceship, it was more like a blimp or an orb of some kind. And then a bunch of weird creatures came out and started trying to take you away, and you wanna know what? They all looked like Randall. Do you understand? And I was jumping up and down to save you.”
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Polanski’s Carnage is a fantastic slap in the face
By theredraylives | February 22, 2012
Carnage
dir. Roman Polanski
Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, John C. Reilly, Christoph Waltz
Four and a half Stars out of Five
Going in, the excellent trailer makes pretty clear the way the plot is going to unfold, and in even that, one can imagine precisely what the film will be trying to say. In browsing through a number of other reviews it is clear that the reviewers were put off by this. Polanski’s newest outing is a fantastic film- ever heard how it is the anxiety of the owners that causes dogs meeting one another for the first time to fight? That’s exactly what is on display here, and despite a few shortcomings the film is superbly directed and acted. One feels uneasy the entire time watching the film, trapped, claustrophobic, which is precisely the point. The entire runtime, the only question really going through anyone’s mind will be, “what is the point of all this?” Waltz nails it as the film ends, and though the theme was obvious, it was executed wonderfully. Spoilers to follow.
At the onset of the film, we see one boy violently attack one another with a stick- that boy is Zachary Cowan, who cracks Ethan Longstreet with the stick and ends up breaking a couple of teeth. To hash out the incident, Zachary’s parents Alan and Nancy (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) have come to visit Ethan’s parents, Penelope and Michael (Jodie Foster and John C. Reilly). The two couples do their best to make nice and be cordial about the incident, but friction abounds as one parent clashes with another over and over, a fragile peace occurs, and friction is quick to resurface. The film’s runtime is only 80 minutes, and it absolutely vanishes- it is so engrossing and entertaining to watch that there is never a risk of attention being removed from it.
The film’s wonderful immersion is due to the incredible cast that fills out these characters in full in every single way. Winslet, Waltz, Foster, and Reilly are all fantastic in their roles, with Waltz absolutely stealing the film with a hilariously cynical and detached performance (his character in particular is so easily identified with because he seems to serve as the vessel for the audience and from the get-go clearly does not care). Winslet’s character is very subdued early on in the film, but she erupts brilliantly as the film progresses- she is a teapot building closer and closer to boiling every moment. Reilly is probably the most perceptive of the characters in that he seems to be more aware of the awkwardness and tension the moment the four parents meet, but does his best to mediate and get through it. Foster’s character is neurotic and very ironic in her worldview, and she is the only of the four parents who refuses to ever suggest that her son might not have been totally innocent- her “always right” attitude serves as a catapult toward conflict over and over. The entire cast is fantastic the entire way through, and if it has a weakness it would be Foster, who goes way over the top as the film builds toward its climax.
Aside from some bookends at the schoolyard, the film is entirely set in the apartment and hallway of the Longstreets- the film is shot incredibly as the entire apartment feels very tight, very claustrophobic, and it feels uncomfortable- the tension oozes all over the entire setting and one keeps hoping that the Cowans might escape, that these two families might step back to actually ask themselves what they’re getting so upset about and come to a resolution. Yet they are magnetically drawn back in until the four of them snap, finally unloading their frustrations about the world, their families, and their lives over the conflict between their children. They surrender to the inevitable clash and have it out, and the film ends no further toward resolution than it was at the beginning…
… at least for the parents. By the end of the film, Waltz notes that they are just children, and at times, they get into fights- ultimately, the question is, “what is the big deal?” As the film ends, it ends on the playground with the two boys, playing together and having fun. The children have moved on, but the tragic reality of the helicopter parent is doomed to force them back into it. After this confrontation the boys are going to be dragged together to apologize, will be barred from seeing one another, and will be dragged through hell by their overbearing parents, who will use them as vessels to try to solve their own problems. George Carlin once said, “if you want to know how to help your kids: leave them the f&#! alone!” That lesson very much applies here. The parents have so much to learn from their children, but will instead force their bitter worldviews onto them.
Roman Polanski does an admirable job here and found the perfect cast to tell this story and everything comes off without a hitch. Despite some minor quarrels with Foster’s overacting, the film is an acting tour de force and it is criminal that it received zero Oscar nominations (not even for best adapted screenplay!)- the Golden Globes also sadly overlooked both Reilly and Waltz. This little gem of a film can’t get enough attention- make it a point to see it as soon as you can! Four and a half out of five stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
If you haven’t yet, check out the amazing trailer! You can find this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. Also, be sure to follow along on Black Entertainment USA as I live-blog the Oscars! Coverage begins at 6:00 PM on Oscar Sunday!! See you there!!!! “Hopeless emptiness. Now you’ve said it. Plenty of people are onto the emptiness, but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness.“
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
Oh crap, the Oscars are this Sunday!! … Tinker, Tailor, Soldieee….zzzzzzzzzzz
By theredraylives | February 22, 2012
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
dir. Tomas Alfredson
Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, John Hurt, Tom Hardy, Mark Strong
Three out of Five Stars
On the way to the theater (or the Redbox, as it were), make sure to pick up some 5-hour energy before deciding to sit through Tomas Alfredson’s dreadfully sluggish Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (check out the trailer here). The film is sleepwalking turtle climbing a steep hill with riveting performances, but inevitably it leaves much to be desired in terms of pacing and editing.
Gary Oldman stars as George Smiley, a British intelligence official who is forced into retirement but brought back to find a Russian mole within MI6. If anything is to keep one awake during the runtime of the film it will be Oldman’s very precise and excellent performance as Smiley (Oldman is nominated for an Academy Award for the role). He is never emotional, he is never not cautious, and every second he is on-screen Oldman creates this very deliberate and forward character who never loses his appeal. Sadly, the film that he stars in is a paltry backdrop in comparison, and while he still shines, his excellent performance is nearly lost in the gridlock the film’s pace is locked in. The supporting cast is equally enjoyable, with Colin Firth and Mark Strong turning in great performances, and with John Hurt as Control, who pretty much steals every scene he is in (actually, ‘commands’ would be a better term).
Yet, as mentioned, strong as the performances are, they are completely meaningless in this pacing and editing nightmare. It jumps around chronologically all the time without really indicating as much, which can lead to an astonishing amount of confusion. The plot is mind-numbingly slow, and a film like this has no hope of maintaining the attentions of an audience (not to mention the baffling sound mixing choices made in the film, which were distracting and sometimes inaudible, and other times too audible). By the time the ending arrives and the mole is revealed, the experience of attempting to maintain full attention on Tinker will likely be a detriment and be utterly meaningless.
More explosions or action wouldn’t make this film better- this is not a Bourne film, and any of those additions would hurt it. The plot itself, if unfolded better or unfolded in a more straightforward manner, might have been more intriguing, but the chronological hopscotch especially proved detrimental to any hope of this. Outside of the performances, there is little of note here, and that is truly what is holding Tinker back. Sadly, the film is simply forgettable, and so too will be the great work done by Oldman and the entire cast. Three out of five stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
Once again, don’t forget about the trailer. You can find this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. Also, be sure to follow along on Black Entertainment USA as I live-blog the Oscars! Coverage begins at 6:00 PM on Oscar Sunday!! See you there!!!! “We are being buried beneath the avalanche of your inadequacies, Mr. Creedy!“
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | 1 Comment »
The Artist is a brilliant and dazzling homage to Hollywood
By theredraylives | February 2, 2012
The Artist
dir. Michel Hazanavicius
Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell
Five out of Five Stars
The Artist takes a step back in time to a different age- filmed entirely in black and white, and is 99% silent. In a Hollywood where every explosion has to be bigger, dialogue is crammed in and substituted for real and meaningful acting and expression, this film is bigger and expresses more than most of the dreck that passes for the modern motion picture. If this film has anything holding it back, it will be the modern film audience, who won’t likely care about this beautiful and amazingly-crafted picture that speaks more in every frame than could ever be described by sound or color. Writer/director Michel Hazanavicius may have created the best film of 2011 by reaching back to a simpler time, but speaks to universal truths about love, about finding one’s place in the world, and about what it truly takes to make one happy.
The film’s plot is nothing that hasn’t been explored on film before (and is reminiscent of Singin’ in the Rain in particular, itself a fantastic movie). Silent film star George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is at the top of the world when he meets a young nobody named Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo), and she becomes the talk of Hollywood when she shows up in a snapshot with George. The talking picture is becoming all the rage, and as it rises, so too does Peppy’s career- meanwhile, Valentin fades into obscurity, a relic of a bygone era. Yet, as the years pass, their paths continue to cross, and just as he helped her get started when she was starting her career, so too must she help him find his place in the new world of talking pictures.
The best thing about the film being filmed as silent- aside from the obvious metaphor for Valentin’s career- is the way that Hazanavicius uses it to tell the story. Valentin has an elaborate dream sequence in which his voice is the only thing that doesn’t exist, and the film’s ending is nothing short of amazing. More than that, however, it forces the viewer to pay far more attention to the visual cues, to the expressions of the actors, the way the scenes are staged- everything on the screen itself becomes more important for telling the story, and it’s a shame that some modern films don’t have this attention to detail. And there isn’t a moment that one isn’t exactly aware of what is going on- lend this both to Hazanavicius and the set designers, as well as cinematographer Guillaume Schiffman. Attention to detail in making any film is of critical importance, and films without it suffer something- fortunately that is not the case here, and the effort really shows.
One cannot, however, sell short the amazing performances of Dujardin and Bejo, whose chemistry is absolutely outstanding, and who inject so much life and character into Valentin and Miller that they captivate throughout the entire film. Both actors are nominated for best acting Oscars, and while they may not walk away with statues on Oscar night, they have created two characters who love without ever saying it, who exude passion with but a touch or a glance, and whose happiness, pain, anger, despair, and hope are so effortlessly captured in their performances. Aiding them in the cast are John Goodman as Al Zimmer, the head of the studio where Valentin is contracted, and James Cromwell, as Valentin’s dutiful driver and aide. A special mention has to be made about the dog, which is absolutely charming and accompanies Valentin throughout the film, and absolutely steals the scenes he is in.
Being a silent film one has to make mention of the score as well, here composed by Ludovic Bource. For most of the film the score accompanies it absolutely perfectly and serves to enhance the beautiful images on the screen, but there are moments when it is jarringly contradictory. These moments are few and certainly intentional, though, so they don’t detract from the film. Rather they compel one to pay closer attention. This, much like the lack of dialogue and the black-and-white, are a great homage to a time when films were simply different- when the music had to carry the entire mood of the film. Not that the music of a good modern film does not absolutely carry the mood of the scene; this, much like the attention to detail already mentioned, should be present in any film, but Bource and Hazanavicius utilize the score to not only tell the story, but to build on it and take it further.
Overall, there is nothing that can be said about the film that can even do it justice. This is not a good film, this is a great film, an absolutely wonderful piece of cinema that is absolutely, in every single way, must-see. So many may be skeptical of the film’s silent, black-and-white presentation, but this amazing film puts so many films made nowadays to shame that there is no comparison. Writer/Director Michel Hazanavicius has already won a DGA for the film, so the smart money is definitely on him taking home an Academy Award, and it could not be more well-deserved. But, don’t believe this reviewer: check out the amazing trailer for the film, which has so much energy and feeling in it alone that one can’t help but be drawn to the theater. It is a beautiful homage, a great story, with excellent performances, but the true effort here belongs to Hazanavicius for using every single tool available to him to tell it all just a little bit better. Five out of five stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
If you missed the link above please check out the fantastic trailer for this film. You can find this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. “Talking pictures, that means I’m out of a job. At last I can start suffering and write that symphony.”
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
The Ides of March… Beware of Reality
By theredraylives | February 2, 2012
The Ides of March
dir. George Clooney
Ryan Gosling, Philip Seymour Hoffman, George Clooney
Three and a half out of Five Stars
If there is anything good to be said about The Ides of March, it’s that it isn’t at all a bad film. It is certainly interesting, and entertaining, and a good way to spend an evening, now that it’s out on Blu Ray and DVD. It boasts an excellent cast and some great directing on the part of Clooney, it is dark and brooding and ulterior motives bubble beneath everyone’s façade. Yet, ultimately, the film’s predictability and “politics as usual” tone end up dragging it down and it leaves the whole experience rather mediocre. In this day of extremely cutthroat and partisan politics, a film like this doesn’t come as a surprise, it isn’t refreshing, and gives nothing interesting to take away from it after it’s over. As an audience, we expect everyone to be crooked, we expect there to be far more going on beneath the surface, and if a film is going to approach this subject matter it needs to do so in a compelling manner so as to give something memorable and tangible long after it ends. The Ides of March is not where you’ll find anything of the sort.
Ryan Gosling is really the heart of this film and his performance is nothing short of excellent. He stars here as Stephen Meyers, a campaign manager for Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a campaign about which he is hopeful and idealistic. He views the governor through rose-colored glasses, and the audience looks through the same lenses for the better part of the film. He is moral, he is honest, and he is virtuous- everything that one’s experience of politicians would suggest he is not, yet this one is. He gives great speeches, his ideas are fantastic and everyone likes him. Republicans fear him and their ability to win against him. Trouble soon arrives, however, and these glasses are ripped from Meyers’ face, and he learns about betrayal, respect, blackmail, and the failures of blind idealism.
Gosling’s performance is the performance that carries the entire film and it is fantastic to see him getting more leading roles, particularly after his amazing turn in Blue Valentine. He is surrounded here by a fantastic cast of Academy Award winners and nominees such as Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei, as well as Golden Globe winner Jeffrey Wright. Evan Rachel Wood also shines as Molly Stearns, an intern with the Morris ticket. The entire cast here is spectacular and fill their roles wonderfully. All are very ably led by Clooney in the director’s chair, so the film is definitely never dull, and the riveting performances help keep one in the film when their attention might otherwise stray.
Given the talent involved, then, one would hope for more from them. Sadly, the film moves along predictably- the young and eager campaign manager is twisted and betrayed by everyone and used to the advantage of everyone else around him, and as Gosling plays him, he seems somehow incredulous and baffled when all this happens to him- as if he is somehow above the murky waters of the political arena and that he can’t be touched by dirty politics. In theory this would work if Meyers was meant to be a plucky newcomer who was naive and didn’t know any better, but by his own admission in the film he has worked on numerous campaigns. The film presents the notion that, somehow, Meyers had his blinders on at all times and never took them off once, and when they are ripped away he is shocked. For the audience, however, this is business as usual in the world of politics. Had Meyers somehow managed to suffer the slings and arrows of the political landscape and avoid becoming a “jaded, cynical asshole” as Giamatti’s Tom Duffy describes himself, this might have meant something- yet in the end, he too becomes another political stereotype, and “politics as usual” just keeps on rolling.
The film was adapted from a play written by Beau Willimon, who has worked on many recent presidential campaigns (including the one on which the play is said to be loosely-based, that of Howard Dean in 2004). This gives the film a great authentic feel and Clooney has really captured it well. The film feels very fast-paced and is constantly on the go, meant to mirror the on-the-go nature of a political campaign. It gives those outside of the political arena a great look at the inside of the machine and a notion of what it might feel like to be part of the whirlwind and chaos of a political campaign. Everything has a sense of urgency, and this sense of urgency looms over the entire film like a storm front. This made for some wonderful tension and certainly helped to keep attention.
Sadly, when the film ends, it doesn’t leave one with anything. It is a film about “politics as usual” staying just the way it is, no matter who and what might try to interfere with it. And after it ends, the Blu Ray player turns off, the television flips back to the world of 24-hour cable news, and it’s exactly the same thing. In this, Ides definitely achieves a measure of realism, but this is a taste of realism that one tastes far too many times in the course of a normal day. It seems as if even the film has given up on the notion of anything but “politics as usual,” and even if it’s right… and well, that’s just the thing. It probably is right, and that just makes the reality of it that much more defeatist. Three and a half out of five stars.
By Nicholas Haskins
You can check out the trailer for the Ides of March, or check out this review and other reviews over at my examiner.com page. As always, you can follow me on Twitter or book my face. “The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks.”
Topics: Movie Previews and Reviews | No Comments »
« Previous Entries Next Entries »
Loading ...
Casino European Roulette with High-quality Technological style 3D graphics skin - play for fun earn and achievements! Mouse, follow in-game instructions.
Classic Black Jack game where you have to get a 21 to make black jack. Classic Casino game Hit on a chip to place bet. Then play and choose hit or stand acording to your cards.
