It’s May, which some people say is the biggest blockbuster month of the year and the beginning of the blockbuster season. Since school is out and it’s starting to get too hot to spend all the time outside, now is the time Hollywood parades out its newest flicks to beat the heat. Here’s a review of a couple I’ve seen in the theater recently and a couple more as we continue to “Navigate Netflix.”
"Lars and the Real Girl" - Starring Ryan Gosling, Emily Mortimer, Paul Schneider, Patricia Clarkson, and Kelli Garner, Directed by Craig Gillespie, written by Nancy Oliver. With a tag line of, "The search for true love begins outside the box," the viewer is lured into this original film of a young man who begins "an unconventional relationship with a doll he finds on the Internet." While the film begins awkwardly, the audience begins to accept the situation as the story moves on. As the methods of delivery are disguised and diluted through the trials of mental illness, disbelief, and human ignorance, the gifts of togetherness, tenderness, family, and love are placed in the unsuspecting laps of both the characters and the story's witnesses. With subtle development from all of the characters, both main and secondary, the acting is particularly shaded and fulfilling. A good tale, although "tall" and difficult to believe at fists to remind us of our fragile humanness and our need to be loved throughout it all. 4/5 Remotes
"Angels and Demons" - Starring, Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard, and Nikolaj Lie Kaas, Directed by Ron Howard, written by Dan Brown (book), David Koepp and Akiva Goldman (screenplay). In this much anticipated sequel (although the book was written before The DaVinci Code) professor Robert Langdon (Hanks) is once again called upon to use his "religous symbollogy" knowledge to save the day. This time to keep anti-matter from blowing up the Vatican. While the story is still controversial (which this viewer/reader believes Howard and Brown used to sell tickets and books, more than the movement within the plot) Howard, instead uses the action within the story to move the plot along which this time and I believe he made the right choice. Hanks', Langdon is more of an "action hero" (in the vein of a subdued Indiana Jones) in this film than a fish out of water professor portrayed in the first one. McGregor, I believe gives one of his best performances since "Trainspotting" and the story is faster and more enrapturing than the first. An entertaining piece, especially when (if you can) you set it aside from it's literary basis and judge it as a movie not a "movie based on a book". 4/5 Remotes.
"My Blueberry Nights" - Starring, Nora Jones, Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, David Strathairn, and Natalie Portman, written and directed by Kar Wai Wong. Despite this films star power and simple storyline it failed to really capture my attention. It tells the story of a young woman's (Jones) trip to get over a love lost. Through her journey she realizes where her home truly is. Nora Jones while subtle and sublime, is a much better singer than she is an actress, her performance lacks emotion with the audience and fails to capture all the space occupied on the "big screen." The artistic drive of Wong is evident throughout the film and there are quite a few ascetically great shots but they are just that and should be captured and transformed into art on a wall not in the moving story of a film. Law, Portman, Weisz, and Strathairn do a fine enough job in their roles but Jones is needed to bring it all together and she just isn't strong enough to carry the entire film. Overall very "pretty" but not very deep. 3/5 Remotes
2 comments:
I have serious beefs with people who get caught up comparing apples to oranges... I mean, books to their film equivalent. First of all, it's two completely different media: you can't build characters on screen out of words.
Second, and more importantly IMO, I view every film adaptation as akin to an academic "reading," or an individual interpretation of a book. For example, do you think Frankenstein is primarily about maternity or scientific advancement? Not all interpretations are going to be at the same level of *ahem* academic rigor, but they're all going to privilege some parts of the book over others.
Two cents from an adaptation scholar, even if it doesn't have anything specific about A&D
Angels and Demons was bad. Bad acting, bad plot changes, bad coincidences. It was bad. But that's just my thought. After the first half of the movie, they wrote their own script. It's liked they said thanks Dan for the premise we'll take it from here. I didn't like it.
Post a Comment