Archive for May, 2011
Goodfellas
Posted by christopher on May 23, 2011
Rating: R
Release: 1990
Language: English
Runtime: 146 minutes
Plot: The life and times of a mobster.
To be a Goodfella, that’s the life, you’ve got it made. Money, respect, women, drinking, gambling, you’re a part of a family. It’s all that Henry wanted growing up. Forget the middle class, average, monotonous lifestyle, sitting behind a desk writing reviews for your blog. That’s not for Henry, there’s no risk, no adventure, no fun. It’s a grind in the start, being a grunt, a gopher; but if you show respect and don’t fuck up, you’ll get yours, Henry sure did.
I had not had the pleasure of viewing this movie prior to this point. I was aware of it but it had only recently struck me that, as an indisputable classic, I should probably give it a whirl. What struck me right away was how much I had missed not seeing Goodfellas earlier. It’s been parodied and redone but only now can I truly reflect and appreciate what an influence it was on media and our culture. What also struck me was the timeliness of the film. Viewing it on Blu-ray I’m sure it was in some way digitally enhanced, and while not a taxing film visually, it could just as easily been created today as it was in 1990. Also to this point was the surprising applicability in light of the “Jersey” movement, where the film highlighted the women’s lavish but incredibly tacky lifestyle choices from their homes, pets, clothing, and makeup. Same too with the men, all named “Pauly something something.” Same as it ever was.
The topical influence is rather apparent but the directorial influence deserves incredible credit as well. It goes without saying that Scoresese is an incredible filmmaker, and it’s telling in the shots that have been mimicked many times now. I’m thinking specifically of a scene where Henry is first taking Karen out on a date to the club. They skip the line and enter through the backdoor/kitchen. The one shot follows Henry and Karen through the halls and kitchen, eventually leading them to their table, capturing every interaction along the way no matter how subtle. It serves to establish Henry’s character for one as a strong, respected member of the family without cutting for even a moment to switch scenes. Scorsese pulls a similar move in introducing the family in the beginning; a one shot again from a first person perspective.
One piece of the film that initially captivated but eventually drew me out was the narration. I quickly became drawn into the film and into Henry’s character as Ray Liotta led the story. He has a great voice, one that always imparted a bit of youthfulness and innocence in spite of his actions. Unfortunately the film switches with Karen narrating for a short while. This would have been wonderful had the film continued to switch, with new characters taking the lead, discussing their thoughts and the current actions in relation to Henry; it did not, however. Henry, in stead, picks the narration back up which frankly just left me confused in hind sight. In the grand scheme, given Karen’s role, I’m not sure why she led the story for a short while.
The performances, across the board, were quite spectacular. De Niro and Pesci particularly. They not only embodied the mobster personality but both added lightness to the story. As much comic relief as was necessary, often times quickly countered by extreme violence, intensity, and often psychopathy, which in and of itself was fun and entertaining.
Beyond the narration, I found the story dragged. There was a point of transition, after which point it just repeated itself. It all eventually served into the climax but could have been cut into a tighter story.
Still, in my humble opinion, Goodfellas is a made movie.
The Verdict:
Comments on this post | Published in Biopic, Drama
Thor
Posted by benjamin on May 15, 2011
Rating: PG-13
Release: 2011
Language: English
Runtime: 114 minutes
Plot: The God of Thunder is banished from his Asgardian home only to find himself placed on lowly Earth. Can he now learn from his prideful past in order to return home and regain his thrown?
The summer superhero season kicks off with Marvel’s latest comic to film presentation of Thor, the Norse god of thunder. We must wait until the end of the summer months to determine how it stacks up against Green Lantern and Captain America, but we can at least joy what we have to date.
The movie follows Thor’s time in Asgard, his fall to Earth due to his arrogance, and his eventual rise after understanding that his actions were wrong prior and that he must be a better god and leader in order to represent his people. The real strength of the story lies within Thor’s time on Earth, a.k.a. Midgard. During this time, the interactions seem genuine, easy to relate, and very entertaining. Thor’s simple misunderstanding that a diner does not bring more to drink when one smashes a cup on the floor demanding sustenance is humorous and allows the audience to understand that Thor has lost everything but is still a Norse god at heart. However, when we venture beyond Earth things are more sporadic and confusing. There are a multitude of characters that are introduced, which are important within the comics, but seem to be more in a filler role here. Why not just save those for another film or build the characters so that they have some actual personality to build upon. If Thor had been left to Earth without returning to Asgard, I would have enjoyed the movie much more than I did.
Even if I downplay the lack of growth with many of the minor characters within the film, I must applaud the casting of Thor. Hemsworth as Thor and Hiddleston as Loki was remarkable. They really shined in their roles. Hemsworth had the manners and look perfected. Hiddleston provided great growth in a character that is by far one of the more interesting villians within the Marvel universe (in my opinion). I’m interested to seeing both possibly reprising their roles within next year’s Avengers movie (Thor has been confirmed, Loki has not), but Marvel should tone back the build up for the Avengers to some degree. This movie and Captain America should not feel like a filler until next summer. They should stand their own without the need to reflect on what is to come.
I must applaud Kenneth Branagh’s work within this film but also provide my criticism for certain choices. For the praise, I must say that he took a subject and story that could have been delivered in an over the top manner, but he contained it well enough that it never seemed cheesy. Any other director would have last the majority of the audience within the first 15 minutes. Maybe it was his past experience with Shakespeare or maybe it was simply Hemsworth’s charisma, but whatever it was it worked and I’d be happy with him continuing to build this universe and set of characters. Now for the criticism. The costumes were just too rubbery for my taste. I would let this slide as there were times when the look on film worked well, but after seeing Thor’s mighty hammer, I just couldn’t accept it any longer. The hammer decided to strike fear into all that face Thor seemed more like some new toy that would be on the shelves of stores in a matter of months. I wanted….no….needed a hammer forged in something of the Earth, not something forged from a McDonald’s happy meal toy.
With all of this being said, I’m still torn between feeling if I loved the movie or want to toss it to the side. I laughed. I was entertained. But I wanted and expected something more. Is that the hype that is talking or someone who just though the film overall fell short of its potential and thus must suffer a rating of such? Until I can figure out my real thoughts, I must give a rating that is undecisive.
Two final notes. The first is that though Thor is advertised for 3D do not spend the money to watch it in 3D. It did not use the technology well enough to warrant the need to see the film in this way. The second is to stay through the credits. As is normal fashion prior to the Avengers, Marvel provides us small scenes which help build towards the mega superhero team up.
The Verdict:
1 Comment on this post | Published in Action, Adventure & Epic, Science Fiction & Fantasy
Invictus
Posted by robert on May 9, 2011
Rating: PG-13
Release: 2009
Language: English
Runtime: 134 minutes
Plot: Freed after 27 years in prision, newly elected President of South Africa Nelson Mandela urges the nation’s rugby team towards victory and his country towards reconciliation during the 1995 Rugby World Cup.
The profound poignancy of the real story of Nelson Mandela and the quest for racial reconciliation in South Africa is sufficient to excuse the over-the-top cheesiness that occasionally surfaces in Invictus. Let’s hope that the movie that truly captures that epic story has not yet been made, but if it takes a Matt Damon sports themed vehicle to expose new generations to the all too recent history of apartheid South Africa, so be it.
Playing team captain Francois Pienaar, Damon is more believable as a rugby player than a South African, but his accent is close enough not to be distracting. Morgan Freeman lives up to the expectations that had long cast him as “born to play” Mandela. The rugby story, the window into the greater drama of injustice and redemption, often seems like an overreaching fairy tale, but in fact stays true to the outcomes of the 1995 Rugby World Cup. The film has a couple of moments of melodrama that seem a bit like cheap shots, and absent much reference to the broader context, Mandela appears obsessed with rugby to the exclusion of other presidential concerns.
Reconciliation among black and white members of Mandela’s security detail, Mandela’s insistence on retaining the apartheid-era name of the national rugby team, and Pienaar’s visit to Mandela’s jail cell are among the elements that prompt the viewer’s wonderment and ultimately awe, at the transformative influence of a man with the humility to use his power for forgiveness and reconciliation rather than vengeance of one of the great injustices of the twentieth century.
All this adds up to a compelling story and a heart-warming film, even if it only leaves you wanting to know more about Nelson Mandela and the story of post-apartheid South Africa.
The Verdict:
Comments on this post | Published in Biopic, Drama
The Social Network
Posted by will on May 6, 2011
Rating: PG-13
Release: 2010
Language: English
Runtime: 120 minutes
Plot: On a fall night in 2003, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius Mark Zuckerberg sits down at his computer and heatedly begins working on a new idea. In a fury of blogging and programming, what begins in his dorm room soon becomes a global social network and a revolution in communication. A mere six years and 500 million friends later, Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in history… but for this entrepreneur, success leads to both personal and legal complications.—Columbia Pictures
I have long been fascinated with the application and practical usage of social interaction online. Not to mention, I have long struggled to balance where I want to be and where I should be when it comes to an online presence. Sure, I have tried them all (at least, it seems like it) and over the years my memberships have been in flux as I have joined and left digital social circles at various junctures and personal whims. These circles have had their niches (blogs, photos, music) and have spanned professional and personal life.
Yet, as we all know, the behemoth of social networking is Facebook. I’ve been a member of the site since 2005. I had to practically beg my friends to join at the time and now, every few months, I’ll go through and “trim the fat” in my friends list. Six years later I still haven’t quite come to grips with my love/hate relationship with the site. Speaking of six years later, who would have thought there would be a movie based on the creation of the site. Not to mention, a 3 time Oscar winning movie?
The plot is crafted around a series of depositions (Zuckerberg is being sued concurrently for ownership of Facebook) which are cut between flashbacks that give us the story of the creation of the company It is best to keep in mind that both the director and writer have claimed that this film should not be intended to be taken as an accurate depiction of the creation of one the most recent and influential business successes of the past 10 years. Many liberties are taken from a basic premise.
Director David Fincher’s technical aspects, from the camera’s movement and framing, really create a visually striking film. There is always a callous, shallow feeling to the movie, regardless of what’s going on. Like Fight Club and S37en before it, The Social Network has an oppressive yet flashy vibe. So, kudos to Fincher for creating an interesting world around, on paper, a pretty boring pretense. Visuals can be a phenomenal aspect to a film but the discussion, the tête-à-tête, is what really separates the banal from the magnificent. Enter Aaron Sorkin.
I love Aaron Sorkin (for the most part). His quick-hit, sharp, biting dialogue turns a so-so tale into a tale with a little bit of grit and intrigue. You know him from the television series The West Wing and Sports Night as well as movies The American President and A Few Good Men. The conversations he crafts for the character interactions are whip-smart and funny to boot. The writing really made this film zing. Credit to you if you caught Sorkin’s cameo as a prospective investor.
So, now that I’ve heaped praise on the direction and writing, let’s take a moment to applaud the acting prowess from the young leads of the film. Jesse Eisenberg’s turn as Mark Zuckerberg crafts the primary character into a multi-dimensional anti-hero. While publicly, the real Zuckerberg appears as an aloof oddball (check out his SNL cameo), Eisenberg instilled a necessary edge to his onscreen (and fictitious?) persona. In a crude sense, he gave the cold, calculating genius a nice pair of brass balls which were necessary to eschew anything to make his idea, his company, a success.
Andrew Garfield, to counter Eisenberg’s Zuck, portrays Eduardo Saverin, Zuckerberg’s best friend. While Eisenberg gave us an mostly emotionless, hyper-active performance, Garfield’s Saverin is the perfect foil; passionate, emotional, and, dare I say, human. Saverin’s sympathetic figure makes Zuckerberg’s portrayal all the more tragic. Eisenberg’s the humanoid, Garfield the human.
I should also mention the performances of Justin Timberlake as former Napster employee, Sean Parker (in the movie, Parker is identified as the founder of Napster, which, in real life, is not correct) as the bandwagon-jumping jackass and Armie Hammer is the upper-crust Winklevoss Twins; both turned in outstanding portrayals and grabbed the appropriate emotional reactions that I imagine Fincher wanted.
I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the soundtrack. Scored by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, the music underneath all of the layers of complexity keeps a steady hand on the tiller amid the chaos. The tracks are haunting and tense but as they come to a breaking crescendo, they only bend – thus keeping the uncomfortable annoyance buzzing along. Most memorable films contain memorable music and in The Social Network is just another example. Admittedly though, I’ll best remember the first trailer’s backing track than anything from the movie.
Overall, this movie is clever and moves at a modern-day pace. Does it speak for our generation? I would like to think not. Perhaps it’s a Generation X take on a Millennial scenario. Either way, it’s more than worth your time.
The Verdict:
