A decent-sized stack this week:
I was really, really looking forward to Let the Right One In, the Swedish import heralded as the best Vampire movie ever.
Sadly, that's not what I saw.
The central character's are a paler than normal 12 year old boy (even by Nordic standards), misunderstood by his mother and teachers, bullied by everyone else who befriends a new girl in his apartment complex. He's apparently the first friend this girl has had in a long, long time--if not ever. There's some almost good moments as the two of them get to know each other, and explore the friendship.
Oh, she's a very violent, near feral vampire when she's not being awkward with the boy, by the way. And she eventually comes to his aid from the bullies, but by the time that happened, I couldn't even care that there was little motivation left for her to do so.
This was one of the dullest movies I've seen this year--punctuated by brief moments of big violence. These moments were done right--absolutely right, when the girl jumped up on a victim and began to attack/feed, it was so raw, so animalistic, you couldn't take your eyes off the screen. And then seeing her covered in the blood of her victim was truly horrifying, because no 12 year old should ever have that much of anything covering her, much less someone else's blood.
Outside of those moments, it was all to easy to take your eyes off the screen--there were any number of scenes, characters, shots that added absolutely nothing to the movie beyond time, and lessened the whole because of their presence. (I'm on the wait list at the Library for the novel, I hope most of these scenes make sense after reading it--but if there's required reading to "get" the flick, it's an utter failure). Too much time was spent on things not happening, things happening that related to nothing else, or things happening (too) slowly and dully. I know European movies aren't as action packed as American movies, but this isn't just the ugly American talking--it's one thing to not be bursting with action because you're building character, developing the setting, or something. But there's nothing to be gained from pure non-action.
This could've been as good as everyone says it was, and maybe 15 minutes of it was. But the rest of it was so bad it just didn't matter.
For my money, you want a scary as h-e-double-hockey-sticks, yet arty vampire film--you still have to go back to 1995's The Addiction (which I just now put on my queue, been too long since I've seen it).
D
Sugar is one of those films you hear about for months, and unless you happen to catch it while it flits through your art house theater, you're sunk til the DVD release. Thankfully, the wait is over.
The movie follows baseball pitcher Miguel "Sugar" Santos from the recruiting days in his native Dominican Republic, his first Spring Training and assignment to a minor league team in the MidWest (where apparently only 1 person speaks halfway decent Spanish, and he's the team catcher).
A movie about dreams, a movie about cultures not so much clashing, as much as bumping into each other, a movie about one boy growing into manhood (while others around him do so in different ways).
Watching the minor league system from Sugar's point of view, is far different from Costner's or Redford's ever was. It rings absolutely true--I have no idea how close to reality it is, but until I hear differently, it's going to be what I expect the Boise Hawks (and everyone else) are going through.
But you don't have to know anything about, or even like, baseball, to let this quiet, slow (but not slow in the "nothing happens for ages" way that the above is, more of a graceful slow), powerful film cast it's spell over you.
The storyline doesn't go where you expect, even up to the last few minutes when you think you've figured out Plan B (or C or whatever). Excellent direction, character development, script, and actors I'll probably never see again.
B+
Sherman's Way seemed like a movie that would be a decent way to kill 90 minutes, but not much more than that.
Uptight Yale Law student finds himself in California on a last ditch effort to save his relationship, which blows up in his face. He finds himself cut off from his high society funds and hitching a ride with a washed up ex-Olympian who is busy coasting through life. Odd Couple bickering ensues, lessons are learned, characters grow, etc.
The reason Odd Couple movies are so often made is that when they work, they are funny with a capital "F". This is one underscores the capital "F." James LeGros and Michael Shulman have great chemistry together, and keep the predictable storyline laugh-filled. The movie belongs to Enrico Colantoni, who plays the sage friend of the Olympian, and host to both. In most scenes, it appears he's doing very little, but you don't have to step back very far to see that he's in command of every scene, and turning up the funny all the way to 11.
Funny, touching, more than just a good way to kill time.
B
I honestly didn't intend on writing about Good Dick, but as I wrote up the rest of these, I decided it had bothered/offended me enough that I might as well vent a bit. Marianna Palka wrote, directed and starred in the feel good movie of the year. Well, feel good if you're a stalker seeking hope that the object of your fixation will end up falling for you. Otherwise, it's just wrong. And creepy. And disturbing. And just wrong. I was ready to turn it off within the first fifteen minutes, but kept at it to see when a. the comedy in this "rom-com" would set it; b. the female protagonist (listed on imdb as "Woman") would either reveal a decent justification for giving her stalker the time of day; or c. would wake up to the danger she was placing herself in.
Naturally, I waited til the end of the movie and didn't see any of those. I should also mention I just couldn't believe that Josh Ritter (playing the part of "Man") would be as creepy as he was--but I was wrong again. Ritter plays a video store clerk who becomes fixated on Woman, who spends her time holed up in an apartment paid for by someone watching rented "adult" movies. But it's okay, because this stalker has a heart of gold and really starts to care about the Woman. Man lies to Woman, which basically leads to her letting him move in, and eventually they fall in love, and she begins to recover from a horrid childhood. Just what always happens with stalkers, right?
What woman in her right mind stars in this bunk, much less makes it? What was she thinking? Despicable.
Incidentally, most, if not all, of the supporting characters (who did bring the amusement and heart into the flick) did have names--which just seems strange. But a very, very, very minor crime comparatively speaking.
F
Troubled childhoods seem to be a recurring theme this week, but this one was done right. Phoebe in Wonderland is a magical film (not a term I throw around lightly) about a precocious little girl who gets cast in her school play of Alice in Wonderland and starts to receive guidance from Carroll's characters. Sort of. That was the gist of the Netflix description, as I recall, but it missed the mark. It's a story about a mother trying to figure out how to be be the mother she wants to be (while working on expanding her dissertation on, coincidentally enough, the book Alice in Wonderland), s girl trying to figure out how to fit in to a world she doesn't understand (and which doesn't seem to want to understand her), and the chaos that can erupt when an actual educator finds themselves in a modern school.
As Phoebe's mother, Felicity Huffman is at her very best (which is quite good), even tho' the brunette 'do she sports drove me to distraction a few times. Bill Pullman gave the reserved performance that only he can as the less than perfect father--ditto for Campbell Scott, whose performance as the school administrator you love to hate was pitch perfect (I've quoted a couple of his lines over and over). Patricia Clarkson's turn as the theater teacher made me embarrassed I couldn't place the name when I read it in the opening credits. The various children were really quite good--particularly the lad who played Phoebe's friend Jamie, and the girl who played her little sister.
Which means I should get to Phoebe herself--Elle Fanning. I don't know exactly what type of genetic engineering the Fanning parents dabbled with to produce such fantastic actors as Elle and her sister, but I'm pretty sure it's illegal in most nations--but man, it payed off! One of the more captivating performances I've seen this year--she brought be to the edge of tears at two points in the film--once due to her character's pain, and the other because she was that inspirational. Few actors triple her age can pull that off.
None of that matters without a great script and director--Phoebe has problems, real problems--but the nature of them is drawn out slowly, and not in the typical way the entertainment industry does so. And when we're finally flat out told what's wrong with her, the issues are shown in a very real, and again very a-typical manner. She nailed the movie nailed it in exactly the way so many fail. Even at this point, it's not a problem to be solved/cured--it's presented as the way Phoebe is, and she and her family just have to figure out how to live with it.
A
0 comments:
Post a Comment