The Soloist was one of those movies that had an amazing trailer when it was still in previews, one that left me dying to catch it in movie theaters but I never got the chance to. The dramatic, crescendoing classical music, emphasis on main character Nathaniel Anthony Ayers’ cello, made the quickening scene splices look heart-thumping. Well, like I said, despite the heart-thumping I still didn’t get to it in movie theaters, but that’s what Netflix is for. And heart-thumping it was not.
But you can appreciate what it was, which was honest and real. After all, the story has not only the benefit of being true, but of being recent, enabling even small details of real life LA Times columnist Steve Lopez’ s experiences to be remembered. It is poignantly honest and strikingly realistic. Yes, it’s slow. Be forewarned. Some scenes linger on a bit too long, and within those scenes, some looks, glares, gazes, and pauses linger too long as well. But while this made the film slightly less entertaining, it made it more admirable and impressive. It’s not common for a film to capture reality so well. Because in real life, we aren’t be rushed to fit camera frames and swift beats that will keep an audience’s attention. We pause, we stutter, we stare.
A friend saw the film a few days before me, and when I asked if I would like it, she told me yes, because of the beautiful message of it - which is true. But she said it made her feel crazy. I thought that was really weird. Plenty of movies center around people who have mental illnesses, but it never made me feel crazy to watch. Well, she was right. Jamie Foxx’s pretty brilliant portrayal of homeless schizophrenic musical prodigy Ayers involves him absolutely rambling, careening through every thought that enters his mind out loud. This is such a good amount of the dialogue, you start to feel crazy. It’s natural for us to search for something in his rambling that will form a real answer, something we can process easily and define. But you won’t find that so easily here, and it takes some getting used to - lightbulb! This is how Steve Lopez, played beautifully and sincerely by Robert Downey, Jr., would have felt. Over his time with Nathaniel, he had to learn to form conversations out of the rambling.
All in all, it’s slow, and a bit maddening. But it’s worth watching, if anything to be really hit by the harsh reality of life on the streets in LA, and the beautiful reality of a friendship that managed to survive there.
August 20th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
If you’re in the mood for a deep, thought-provoking, cinematic tour-de-force, keep going. You haven’t found it here in Julie and Julia. If you’re looking for a sweet, whimsical, good time wrapped in a motivational message, then head to your movie theater now for this Nora Ephron flick.
Is it the kind of film given largely away in the previews? Well, yes. But it’s not like there are suprise twists and turns to the plot. Instead, this movie is just an indulgence into our will to be thoroughly entertained, to laugh, smile, and overall escape the world inside that theater. The movie is two hours of pretty. Enjoyable from start to finish. Meryl Streep was just brilliant as Julia Child. Period. As if we expected anything less from her. You will want to watch hours and hours of her as Child. It would be okay by me if her Julia Child was a character in every single movie, no matter the genre - in fact, I think that would be an improvement. She is just a delightful human being, someone you wish you had in your life, a literal ray of sunshine - who only becomes more human and lovable when she reveals her few sadnesses in brief moments of weakness. Stanley Tucci is admirable as her husband, Paul. Admirable sounds like a strange, and perhaps lacking adjective for an actor in a film. But on the contrary, you look up to his Paul. Not that you will see this if you’re a man, but if your wife or girlfriend makes you sit through it on DVD or something, take note at this model husband. Just as I’m sure all women were taking note, too. Always loving, always putting Julia first, and yet never, ever being passive.
Modern day couple Julie and Eric Powell, played by Amy Adams and Chris Messina, are the parallel to the Childs, only Julie struggles a bit more to be that ray of sunshine - she is not. It’s said that in real life Julie Powell is a bit of a bitch. One movie flaw: they say Julie’s a bitch in the movie, as if to throw reality a bone, but Adams doesn’t play bitch. She’s still almost perfect, though. Bitch, no. But, moody, difficult, and narcisisstic? Yup. Simultaneously vulnerable, adorable, lovable, and relatable? Yup. And Eric is the modern day Paul. The saint with limits that protect his dignity.
All in all, this was a fun ride and a nearly fascinating look at two real life women who, cheesy as it sounds, had a dream and made it happen. There was nothing fantastical or unrealistic about how they reached success, because it was all true. It’s comforting to see that you can make your goals happen. And it’s even better to watch Meryl Streep and Amy Adams do it before your eyes. One word of warning: this movie is largely about cooking. The food looks AMAZING. Be prepared to quit your job the day after seeing this movie to take up cooking. Or, at least, you will want to get to a French bistro pronto.
August 13th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
Sometimes it’s harder to review a film you truly love, because the points you want to hit on in explaining why it’s so good can be overwhelming. 500 Days of Summer is refreshingly and surprisingly perfect. It is completely different from any “romantic comedy” you have ever seen. Take a real-life story, and make it more real-life by chopping it up and mixing up its chronological sequence, adding glimpses into our minds with surreal, emotion-driven mirages, and play it against an infectious soundtrack.
There are two major dynamics going here that make the film, starring Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as the couple in question, startlingly realistic. One is the relationship itself. You know from the trailer that this does not end well. Boy does not get girl. So get that out of your head, and watch a relationship unfold on screen that you can totally relate to. The romcom relationship is so unrealistic, and it boosts our expectations up to unfulfillable standards. No, sorry, probably no one will ever ride a horse across a lake for you. 500 Days is a relationship we have all had. Whether we’re in a relationship now or single, this has happened. It’s brutally honest. We all have fallen so in love we think it’s the end all, be all, but then it does just that: it ends. Like a slap in the face. It’s over. And we have to move on.
The second dynamic is the order in which we see this relationship. We don’t see it from day 1 to day 500. It jumps around. And this was a brilliant tactic in writing, because it perfectly depicted a relationship in retrospect. When you’re in a relationship, you can’t take yourself out of it to look in and analyze. You just go forward, day to day, and everything seems great until it doesn’t, and it ends. And you think, where did it go wrong? But by looking back, we see it out of order, and we see that one day we were so happy, the next miserable, the next happy, the next miserable, and so on. The relationship’s course makes sense when it’s viewed out of order.
Aside from these two major writing decisions (made by writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber), there were tons of treasures in this film. And I can’t say enough about the writing anyway. I mean, they nailed the inside of a young guy and a young girl’s minds. Dead on reality in emotion, love, and just everyday thoughts. And that picture was painted sublimely by Levitt and Deschanel, who were completely believable as a couple and as typical urban twentysomethings, defined by the urge to find something, anything, that completes them. There’s just so much to love here, so much to relate to…just get to movie theaters now. You’ll love watching people screw up love.
August 5th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
You can tell just from the trailer that Funny People has a message to it. The major plot is revealed, that Adam Sandler’s character is stricken with terminal cancer. The trailer even reveals that the cancer goes into remission, leaving Sandler’s character, George Simmons, with new perspective on life. No, the trailer doesn’t leave much to the imagination. But there was still a surprise factor, and that was the heaviness of the film. Obviously, a film involving terminal illness wouldn’t be an endless string of one-liners and gross-out comedy, but come on, it’s an Apatow film. With Seth Rogen, Adam Sandler, Jonah Hill…cancer could be funny, right? Not so much. The film was much more serious and emotional than I had expected, and it gave me a sort of new found respect for Judd Apatow and his cast of merry men. There was a sort of depth there, like, look, we know life is about more than just penis jokes (though there are plenty of them). The film spoke volumes about the importance of living life to the fullest, of not getting caught up in money and fame, of not losing touch with the people who love you, and of the healing power of comedy.
Adam Sandler plays a comedian comparable to Robin Williams in wealth, power, and bad movie choices, who suddenly realizes he hates his life when he is dealt the almighty diagnosis. Suddenly, his mansion means nothing to him, even disgusts him. We watch him unravel onstage in front of his adoring fans. As he grows bitter toward the industry that lead him to greed and loneliness, this is contrasted by the young trio of comedic up-and-comers, played by Seth Rogen, Jonah Hill, and the brilliant Jason Scwartzman. As if you couldn’t already see the nice dichotomy of the excitement and determination and love of young comedians (Rogen’s character, Ira, glows while talking about performing pro bono) versus the jaded worldview of the old, it’s then driven home by a toast George Simmons makes to a table of twentysomething comedian friends at Thanksgiving dinner, telling them, in so many words, to enjoy the now and the people around them. It’s hitting us over the head with the message, but it’s a nice message so we’ll excuse them.
But in the end it’s comedy that saves even the older seen-it-alls like George Simmons (flanked by real-life comedian cameos that gave the film some credibility like Paul Reiser, Norm MacDonald, Sarah Silverman, Ray Romano - oh, and Eminem, which made no sense but the scene was pretty hilarious). Even through the tribulations George goes through with his “one-that-got-away,” Laura, played beautifully and vulnerably by Leslie Mann, comedy ends up pulling him and Ira through.
In the end, Funny People falls just short of being really solid and really strong. You won’t be able to put your finger on it. It’s got everything you’d think a movie should have: great cast, funny dialogue, strong storyline, poignant message…so where’s the disconnect? Wherever it is, and whatever it is, it’s not worth you not getting over to movie theaters to catch this one. It’s still basically a must-see, or at least a should-see.
August 3rd, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
I was skeptical walking into the movie theater to see The Ugly Truth this past Friday night. It looked pretty lame, and I don’t mean that “lame” as slang, I mean it as literally lame, limp. But, Katherine Heigl? Good. Gerard Butler? Better…so let’s give it a shot.
I must say, I was pleasantly surprised. No, the writing wasn’t amazing. It wasn’t a cinematic masterpiece. There were no shocking and brilliant plot twists - in fact, the plot was basically as predictable as I predicted. But, something saved it from being just another chick flick. It was funny. Really funny. Maybe the writing wasn’t mindblowing when it came to plot and development, but it was great dialogue. Lines that were quick, clever, and laugh-out-loud without being unrealistic lines that no one would actually say. The writing also managed to do something successfully that many movies fail to do, and that was making our main characters real. It’s hard to make people like Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler real, because they’re beautiful people, and most of us don’t look like them. But here they were just the right amount of self deprecating to make us believe they were normal and human, but not too much that it was blatant that that was what they were trying to do. This managed to make the whole romcom formula of boy always gets girl just a little more realistic and believable. Which made certain gags in the film that much more hilarious. And perhaps the biggest test of all, the chemistry between Heigl and Butler? Pretty perfect. I not only believed them together, I wanted them to be together.
Obviously, “real” critics, newspaper critics, will pan this movie. It’s a romcom, it was critically doomed from the onset. But, when it comes to movies that will make you laugh and feel good and have fun, do you really listen to those old, stuffy reviews? Those guys hate fun movies. The more they hate it, the more fun you’ll have. And they’ll really hate this one. But, you can’t see heavy, deep, dark movies all the time. What about date night? Girls’ night out? A fun, casual Friday night movie? This is the perfect choice.
July 27th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
I had written about My Sister’s Keeper in anticipation of its release, so it’s only right I’d follow up with a review. Unfortunately, I was disappointed. The film just sort of missed its mark. I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that it was structured too novel-esque. The movie is based on Jodi Picoult’s novel, and too often movies completely stray from their literary origins. So you’d think one that remained more loyal to the text would be a welcome change. Well, just a second. Director Nick Cassavetes used a technique that, in theory, might have seemed quite interesting. But it just didn’t play well. He moved the film along by having the different characters narrate their thoughts and the past with language that sounds like it’s straight from the book. Ugh. It just pulled the movie down whenever it was going at a nice pace. It was awkward and clunky. It made the movie less poignant coming of age tale and more Lifetime documentary. And if Cassavetes was using this technique to convey information, which I assume he was, it was unnecessary. Rule number one - or at least three or something - of screenwriting is to show, not tell. So much of what was blandly read to us by Abigail Breslin or Alec Baldwin could have been shown.
My second issue is that our main girl, Kate, who is dying of Leukemia, is just not relatable enough. You just don’t fall for her - which is awful, I know, to say about a character dying of cancer at the age of fifteen. So, of course it’s tragic and moving, but there’s a disconnect with the character that prevents really feeling for her. And it’s not actress Sofia Vassilieva’s fault. On the contrary, the young actress brings as much life to the role as the script will let her. She is a sort of glow throughout the film, and she is so real and so beautiful. But the way the role is written, Kate just never feels all the way real. It is a wonderful characteristic of Kate that she is the strength of her family crumbling around her impending death, and that she has a grace and calm resolution about her, but she’s still a teenager staring at death. She needs to have some kind of fear, or small meltdown to prove her reality. There would be more feeling there if this was a more believable role.
However, cast members like Abigail Breslin, Evan Ellingson the teenage brother, Jason Patric as the father, Cameron Diaz (who actually acted in this) as the mother, Joan Cusack as a traumatized judge, and Alec Baldwin as the lawyer, Thomas Dekker Kate’s also cancer-ridden boyfriend…they shone, and carried the film when it fell. I believe this group of people could have read anything on screen and it would have been powerful. While you might not feel exactly for Kate, you will feel for the people around her that are struggling to handle this.
And certain parts of the film are written beautifully and will really strike you. At one point Kate is worrying to her mother that her boyfriend hasn’t called her in three days. This is such a common conversation, one that every girl will at some point have with her mother or friend at least once. There are always the speculations: does he not like me anymore? Did he meet another girl? Did I do something wrong? But here you realize that death is actually an option. It’s a real possibility that her boyfriend isn’t calling because he’s died. It’s a shocking concept to wrap your head around, but it’s life to so many young people with terminal illnesses. It might have been the saddest realization of the entire film, and it really hit home. So bravo there.
I also liked how there was a real Cassavetes feel to the movie, it made it authentic. I happen to be a fan of John Cassavetes, and that style is missing from movies today. But Nick brought that romantic, painterly aesthetic to some scenes, kind of reminded me of A Woman Under the Influence. Anyway, the film is definitely worth seeing, but I’d wait to rent it instead of seeing it in theaters.
July 15th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews, Uncategorized | Comments (0)
I was so excited to see Sasha Baron Cohen’s latest venture, Bruno. Cohen is a real daredevil of comedy, an innovator in an era of stale comedic dead-ends and tired, same-ol’ jokes. I thought, “oh, what will he come up with next? How crazy will this next film be?” Poor me. Poor millions of Americans who rushed to the theaters to be a part of this nearly era-defining comedy regime.
The regime has ended. I am sad to say that Bruno was the most pointless, stupid, obscene, pornographic film I have seen in a looong time. I have no idea how this could be rated only R and not even NC-17. Now, I’m no prude. In fact, I think I have lower morality standards than most when it comes to comedy. (Just kidding, almost) But this outright offended me. So much nudity and sex, like legit porn sex with little black boxes just covering enough to be shown in theaters. And okay, I know Borat didn’t have a plot, per se, but there was the whole quest of Borat, and he met all these interesting characters on the way, and there were real, solid jokes that held throughout the film, playing in and out and tying it all together. The jokes were kind of shocking, and offensive in a playful, thought-provoking way.
Bruno is an utterly pointless romp through Hollywood’s celeb scene, stomped on and drenched with absolutely arbitrary gross-out nudity. When it comes down to it, it’s unfortunately what many critics and Hollywood insiders have been predicting: the gag is lost because everyone knows Sasha Baron Cohen now. He can’t pull one over anymore. People think oh, hey, he’s doing something crazy for a film. The brilliance behind his Borat character was that people had no reason to think this was not a real, insane person. But that brilliance can obviously only be reached in the first film. The jig is up. So Bruno just fell flat, with a big “meh” and some less…big…body parts. Cohen needs to find a new vehicle for his next film. He’s never going to be able to convince us he’s not himself anymore. Even if he’s walking down a highway in Texas in S&M gear with another man strapped to him.
And as far as the gay controversy…we are familiar with Cohen’s methods of teaching awareness from Borat. He shocks his audience by magnifying prejudice and bigotry, to the point where ignorance is absolutely disgusting. Both Bruno and Borat are monsters, made from the very racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic threads that run through humanity. Cohen takes the mirror and points it back at us. When clips of Bruno began to leak, a lot of the gay community spoke out, accusing Cohen of basically taking the gay movement back about thirty years. He made homosexuality a disgusting mockery. Having faith in Cohen, I trusted that this was all part of the plan to show viewers just how gross homophilia is. But upon seeing the film, I do think he just…takes it too far? I can’t put my finger on it. But it didn’t help the gay movement. I think Cohen meant well, I think he meant to teach tolerance in his usual bizarre way, but he overshot it. Leaving the film completely void of purpose.
July 13th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
So I know it’s more than after the fact - it’s long out on DVD - but I just saw American Gangster for the first time last night, and it’s definitely a movie you have to comment on. The film did well and generated a lot of buzz, seemingly mostly because of its stars, Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe. Maybe it was underrated, though.
There were definitely some issues with the film. On the upside, it moved really fast. On the downside, it moved really fast. It’s the sort of thing you can’t quite put your finger on. At two hours and thirty-eight minutes, the film is certainly long enough. And you don’t feel like you’re missing out on any important details in main character Frank Lucas’ life and career in crime. But somehow, it just feels like you’re catapaulting through the story. Lucas comes across everything so easily, there’s no explanation of how certain things fall into his lap. I suppose I’m finding it difficult to not compare this to Blow, both stories of two men finding dream-worthy success in the drug trade only to be absolutely torn down in tragedy. Blow satisfied me more plot-wise. It seemed more realistic, because we actually saw how George Jung went from point A to point B. Frank Lucas sort of floats from one windfall to another, until the end of the film when it all crashes down.
But the floating is shown beautifully. In true characteristic form, Ridley Scott paints an uncomfortably gritty reality in a poetic light that’s easier to watch and more moving than stomach-churning. The drug use in the 1970’s is the background for this story to play out on, and it’s absolutely horrifying to what level the abuse reached. And yet it just made you think “wow” as you shake your head in sadness and disbelief. The heroin-addled New Yorkers and Vietnam soldiers were too real, and yet some sort of art that almost blows you away.
As far as the main characters, Russell Crowe, as Richie Roberts, the cop after Lucas, just falls short, period. You don’t love him, you don’t hate, you don’t care. Washington is predictably haunting as Lucas. Josh Brolin is over-the-top, 2-D evil as Detective Trupo, the corrupt villain here. Which brings me to my point in reviewing this movie. It had such an interesting dynamic, in which the good guys and bad guys are clearly presented, and then shifted around until you can’t decide who’s who. A lot of gangster movies make you fall for the criminal being chased. You love him, you hate the cops, you don’t want him to get caught. Other movies make the cops the heroes, who will save the town from the vicious fugitives. All else aside, American Gangster is kinda brilliant because each of these three men is good and bad. It’s exponentially more realistic than other gangster movies in that aspect. Because nothing is that cut and dry, that this guy’s good and this one’s bad. Frank Lucas was a cold-blooded killer and drug lord. He also provided endlessly for his family and took care of his neighborhood. Richie Roberts was one of the most honest cops in this era, and yet he was a gross adulterer in his marriage and he neglects his young son. Detective Trupo is a man of the law, with absolutely no morals.
You won’t fall for Frank Lucas. You won’t cry when things start going wrong for him. But you’ll feel for him, and you’ll feel the sadness for his family. You’ll hate the arresting cops a little. Unlike other gangster films, you won’t love Lucas, but you’ll care about him, because that’s the human power Washington brings to the role. In the end, you’ll see every character for who he is: a man.
July 9th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
Last night I was semi-dragged to see Land of the Lost. Well, not so much dragged as asked, and even though I was making a point to stay away from the dreadful looking film, I threw caution to the wind and decided to give it a shot. Lately I have found myself masochistically subjecting myself to movies I know will be awful for you people, so I can give you an honest warning to stay away and do you that service. You’re welcome. I figured instead of just circumspecting that Land of the Lost will be horrific, I should tell you based on some facts.
Unfortunately for my attitute that’s constantly dying to be negative, it wasn’t horrific. It wasn’t good, per se, but not bad either. The complaint I had heard most about Ferrell’s latest was that it didn’t know what demographic it wanted to appeal to. Is it for kids? Is it for adults? It appeals to both, and yet sometimes is so inappropriate for one group. Well, only if you go in needing it to be categorized. If you need it to be, here’s my impression. This is really not a kids’ movie. But sophisticated it ain’t. Critics said it really didn’t stick to the 1970’s television show it was made after, and maybe it didn’t plot-wise. But I think it did tone-wise. It was kitschy. Sometimes wacky, sometimes corny, sometimes zany. It was goofy through and through. I have to commend how fast it moved. I was never bored. Even though the creatures were goofy-looking, there was a certain element of action and suspense. And there were enough dirty jokes to keep adults, if faintly, laughing. I think people are missing its subtle 1970’s satire. I mean, this isn’t supposed to be Jurassic Park. It’s kind of poking fun at the gloriously cheesy “action adventure” TV people used to watch in the seventies.
Will Ferrell is in his element here - doesn’t he always seem to play a washed-up professional of some sort that considers himself much more important than anyone else considers him? He did succeed in being significantly more disgusting in this film, though, so…there’s that. (Watch out for a pool scene of Ferrell in wet tightie-whities. I haven’t had much of an appetite since.) Anna Friel is a cute, spunky, if forgettable Gal Friday as Holly, and Danny MacBride does what he does best as an offbeat sidekick with questionable hygiene and even more questionable morals. But really Matt Lauer steals the entire show.
So, whether I like this or not, I’m gonna go ahead and say Land of the Lost might be worth your time, at least for renting when it hits DVD. Just don’t expect wit, intelligence, or ahead-of-its-time plot structuring. If you go in knowing you’re going to get some 1970’s kitsch, I promise you’ll get a few laughs in.
July 2nd, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
I was recently dragged to a showing of The Proposal with Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. Oh. My. God. This was the most boring, stupid, vapid rom-com I’ve seen in a while - and that says a lot when you’re talking about rom-coms. I almost can’t wait to masochistically make myself see The Ugly Truth with Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler (hands off, Heigl!) so I can compare the two: which is the worse romantic pairing with the least chemistry? Which is the most tired display of dating stereotypes? Which is the worse collection of desperate jokes? This should be a good competition, seriously.
For now, I am left to warn you about the The Proposal. Well, my mother and grandmother LOVED it and think you’re an evil fascist if you don’t. I’ll refrain from making a joke about calling me Mussolini here. Because I, nor anyone else I know in the 18-50 age range, enjoyed. If you’re above that range, give the film a shot. Maybe I’m totally missing something. But if you’re in that range, there is no reason you want to pay money to sit through this mindless fodder.
SPOILER ALERT: Why was this so painfully boring? A common complaint in romantic comedy rings perhaps its truest here: this was so dreadfully predictable. You can’t do Green Card again because it sucks without Gerard Depardieu. Sandra Bullock’s character, Margaret Tate is a shrew of aboss at a publishing firm who’s about to be deported back to Canada - but she can’t lose her amazing job because she has no other life. So she makes slave assistant Andrew (Reynolds) marry her. And the INS is after them the whole time, as they travel to Andrew’s home in Alaska to tell his parents about their engagement, and get married. You know they’re going to make it to the altar, where you know the INS will be waiting to clamp down, where you know Margaret will stop the proceedings because the marriage is a fraud, and leave Andrew at the altar to succumb to the evil INS agent. And you know Andrew will suddenly realize he does love her even though she’s a bitch and he will chase her and miss her 2.5 times before finally catching her, out of breath, and kissing her in front of a crowd who applauds. And nothing funny will happen along the way. And Bullock and Reynolds are about as believable a couple as Evan Rachel Wood and Mickey Rourke - oh, wait.
Moral of the story? This wasn’t so completely horrific that I would say leave your friend’s house if they put the DVD on. If you can watch it for free, it’s just all right, and it is a good escapist movie because it’s just so dumb. Maybe if you know you didn’t schlep to a theater and pay twelve bucks, you’ll laugh at some of the lines. And I must say, if there was one thing that sort of made the ticket worth it, it was Betty White. The woman is adorable, and is the one character that will make you laugh out loud.
June 26th, 2009 by Courtney Iseman | Posted in Reviews | Comments (0)
Loading ...
