Page 10 of 16
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:05 pm
by Sabin
I don't think Stone knows what he's even trying to do here.
He's trying to release a movie about George W. Bush before the end of his term. I'm convinced that is all he had time for.
METAPHORIC SPOILERS
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Thrice Oliver Stone shows us George W. Bush on the field waiting for a fly ball. The film ends with him about to jump for a fly ball...that he can't see. Too many lights in his eyes. He has lost track of the ball.
That's all that Oliver Stone says about George W. Bush. Lost track of the ball. The problem is, George W. Bush never saw the ball to begin with. He never did. And Stone refuses to smack him in the face with it. I don't need to see the man condemned, but to understand someone (like in 'Nixon') is to have no choice but to reach a conclusion. In 'W.' the conclusion is that the guy lost his game, but never indicts him for having any understanding of it.
There are two dazzling conceits that are barely mentioned: A) the fact that Alcoholics Anonymous REQUIRES one to surrender to a higher power and in doing so opened up a terrifying chapter in George W. Bush's life where he came to believe that God wanted him to run...which would make for a fantastic black comedy and dark commentary on the perils of faith; and B) the fact that George W. Bush is an obnoxiously perfect Manchurian Candidate. He NEEDS to be told what to think and do but he can't allow himself to know that he needs to be a puppet, making him the perfect puppet albeit an annoying one.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:03 pm
by Sabin
I don't think Stone knows what he's even trying to do here.
He's trying to release a movie about George W. Bush before the end of his term. I'm convinced that is all he had time for.
METAPHORIC SPOILERS
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
Thrice Oliver Stone shows us George W. Bush on the field waiting for a fly ball. The film ends with him about to jump for a fly ball...that he can't see. Too many lights in his eyes. He has lost track of the ball.
That's all that Oliver Stone says about George W. Bush. Lost track of the ball. The problem is, George W. Bush never saw the ball to begin with. He never did. And Stone refuses to smack him in the face with it. I don't need to see the man condemned, but to understand someone (like in 'Nixon') is to have no choice but to reach a conclusion. In 'W.' the conclusion is that the guy lost his game, but never indicts him for having any understanding of it.
There are two dazzling conceits that are barely mentioned: A) the fact that Alcoholics Anonymous REQUIRES one to surrender to a higher power and in doing so opened up a terrifying chapter in George W. Bush's life where he came to believe that God wanted him to run...which would make for a fantastic black comedy and dark commentary on the perils of faith; and B) the fact that George W. Bush is an obnoxiously perfect Manchurian Candidate. He NEEDS to be told what to think and do but he can't allow himself to know that he needs to be a puppet, making him the perfect puppet albeit an annoying one.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 8:12 am
by Johnny Guitar
I saw W. last night and will back up Sabin on basically every point. It's mere caricature--the film is like a very long SNL skit leavened with simplistic "seriousness." Bush is shown to be stupid, incompetent, uninformed, boorish (Stone loves to get shots of him stuffing too much food in his mouth and then talking). At the same time, Bush is originally shown to be talented and full of promise--i.e., he earned his middle-aged ineptitude from years of drinking, carousing. By the time he gets into the White House he gets a motley crew of caricatures. And everything that happens in terms of Bush (foreign) policy is boiled down to character. There is no such thing here as actual politics, economics, history (outside of recent family history)--there's nothing but friction between ciphers whose "character" is set. Condi is "this way," Rumsfeld "that way," Cheney "this way."
It's awful.
Cromwell, and Burstyn, are the two best in the film I think. They give a glimpse of what the film might possibly have been. The fact that the film treats religious sentiment in a serious way is interesting too, but only conceptually. I don't think Stone knows what he's even trying to do here.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:32 am
by anonymous1980
APPALOOSA
Cast: Ed Harris, Viggo Mortensen, Renee Zellweger, Jeremy Irons, Lance Henriksen, Timothy Spall, Tom Bower, James Gammon, Ariadna Gil.
Dir: Ed Harris.
This is probably going to be 2008's most underrated gem. This is a Western in the classic sense of the word and strongly reminiscent of the great films by John Ford, Howard Hawks and Anthony Mann. Loved it. Exceptionally shot and acted except for Zellweger who's the film's sole sour note.
Oscar Prospects: Should be a contender for Art Direction, Costume Design, Cinematography and Sound.
Grade: A-
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 1:42 am
by Sabin
'W.'
I never want to read about how Oliver Stone "tries to understand George W. Bush" in lieu of actual criticism of the film again. Is there anything satisfying in an aborted mission to impeach George W. Bush? Then there isn't anything satisfying about an aborted mission to understand George W. Bush. This movie isn't narrative, it's gesture. History will forget the gestures to impeach George W. Bush and the only thing remembered about Oliver Stone's gesture to understand George W. Bush is the timing...which ultimately secured more revenue than any other time to release the film.
What 'W.' says about George W. Bush is as follows: A) Daddy issues. Fine. Probably has a lot. They do not reach boiling point outside of a lamely directed fantasy sequence... and B) He is driven by drive, and is an empty vessel for other people's statements. Absolutely. However, the movie refuses to condemn him for it either through the painful silence of his cabinet (there is awkward silence but not painful) or outburst that WE FUCKING TOLD YOU ABOUT THE FILL-IN-THE-BLANK BUT YOU DIDN'T LISTEN!!! 'W.' straddles the line between limp satire and limp drama throughout its lengthy running time and I find that to be unsatisfactory. Libel and slander can be wonky amusement but 'W.' is about as nourishing as a bologna sandwich.
A quick word: I don't know how much of this is actually James Cromwell, but I found his scenes as George Sr. to be by far the most emotionally engaging in the film. Everyone else is associative caricatures. Josh Brolin's early scenes as George W. Bush are fantastic but it devolves into caricature
There's a genius idea buried within 'W.' and that is that buffering the scenes of George W. Bush's life with the circus that is his presidency, we can observe a man's tortuous (and tortuously slow) realization of potential in direct contrast with his willful ignorance in power, and what better way to show this than crosscutting between a struggling idiot and an empowered idiot? Instead of truly hammering this home, Oliver Stone reigns in the structure he has clearly chosen for fear of forfending in his "quest for understanding". In Richard Nixon, he found a man so full of thought that he albatrossed his life. Perhaps in George W. Bush he finds little more than basic instincts. To clarify: I desperately want to see Oliver Stone make me care about George W. Bush. By the end of the movie, like W himself, Oliver Stone has so many bright lights in his eyes that he has clearly lost sight of the ball.
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:26 am
by barrybrooks8
BODY OF LIES
Boring. I was really never interested in the character's well-being or the outcome. A plot device at around the hour mark did however interest me, but even it trailed off and became a movie cliche. I also thought it looked terrible. This is the third Crowe/Scott film to disappoint/piss me off (but I'd recommend it over American Gangster).
C
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 10:07 am
by Hustler
THE WOMEN
Cast: Meg Ryan, Annette Bening, Eva Mendes, Debra Messing, Jada Pinkett Smith, Bette Midler, Candice Bergen, Debi Mazar,Carrie Fisher, Cloris Leachman.
Dir: Diane English
This remixed version of a George Cukor´s 1930 movie turned out to be a fiasco with a very old fashioned image of a woman 70 years later showing problems in terms of fidelity to the current period of time in which the movie takes place. The best: Annette Bening demonstrating her talent once again; She´s a gifted actress and her presence illuminates the film.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: C
Edited By Hustler on 1223824141
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:51 am
by Hustler
--Damien wrote:Because I love the genre and never want to see it disappear, I make a point of going to just about any new western and so I saw Appaloosa today (actually, my Mom was in town and it was her choice, although I certainly would have seen it sometime within the next week). What a marvelous movie this is!
It's refreshing that Ed Harris did not set out to make a "mythic" take on the cowboy film, and yet despite (or because of?) its low-key approach, the film resonates with a deep feeling for and appreciation of the genre. That's due largely to the grace with which Harris made his film, so that it is of a piece without having to recall specifically other westerns, And because Appaloosa is primarily a (beautifully-realized) character study with Loyalty as its main subtext, the people in the film -- thanks also to the wonderful performances -- affect the viewer in ways they wouldn't if the were merely prototypes.
Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen have a terrific rapport. These guys are two of the farthest left actors in Hollywood today, and that kinship probably helped provide a foundation for their chemistry. Their easy, laid-back familiarity recalls Gable and Tracy, Richard Arlen and Chester Morris. The nuances possessed by most of the characters bespeaks of the intelligence and imagination and drollness of the filmmakers.
Renée Zellweger looks terrible here (her face looks as if she were sucking a lemon throughout) and although her character remains a bit of a cypher, it must be said that it is certainly an unusual, maybe even unique, character in a western film.
Harris also handles the action sequences exceptionally well. This is a film which is exciting, suspenseful, thoughtful, moving, smart (despite one large continuity error), clever, humorous and just plain great fun.
But it's not just a fun ride, it's an unexpectedly affecting piece.
As for Mortensen, I agree he portrayed a terrific performance. The point is IMO, that he was brilliantly directed. I´ve seen movies (Alatriste among them) in which his work was awful.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1241382251
Posted: Sun Oct 12, 2008 4:24 am
by anonymous1980
TROPIC THUNDER
Cast: Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Nick Nolte, Steve Coogan, Jay Baruchel, Danny McBride, Brandon T. Jackson, Matthew MacConaughey, Tom Cruise, Bill Hader, Brandon Soo Hoo, Reggie Lee.
Dir: Ben Stiller
The very engaging and energetic performances of the cast especially that of Robert Downey Jr. are what make this outrageous action-comedy/Hollywood satire (mostly) work. I would have to say that this is probably Ben Stiller's best directorial work so far.
Oscar Prospects: Makeup.
Grade: B
Posted: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:04 am
by Damien
Because I love the genre and never want to see it disappear, I make a point of going to just about any new western and so I saw Appaloosa today (actually, my Mom was in town and it was her choice, although I certainly would have seen it sometime within the next week). What a marvelous movie this is!
It's refreshing that Ed Harris did not set out to make a "mythic" take on the cowboy film, and yet despite (or because of?) its low-key approach, the film resonates with a deep feeling for and appreciation of the genre. That's due largely to the grace with which Harris made his film, so that it is of a piece without having to recall specifically other westerns, And because Appaloosa is primarily a (beautifully-realized) character study with Loyalty as its main subtext, the people in the film -- thanks also to the wonderful performances -- affect the viewer in ways they wouldn't if the were merely prototypes.
Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen have a terrific rapport. These guys are two of the farthest left actors in Hollywood today, and that kinship probably helped provide a foundation for their chemistry. Their easy, laid-back familiarity recalls Gable and Tracy, Richard Arlen and Chester Morris. The nuances possessed by most of the characters bespeaks of the intelligence and imagination and drollness of the filmmakers.
Renée Zellweger looks terrible here (her face looks as if she were sucking a lemon throughout) and although her character remains a bit of a cypher, it must be said that it is certainly an unusual, maybe even unique, character in a western film.
Harris also handles the action sequences exceptionally well. This is a film which is exciting, suspenseful, thoughtful, moving, smart (despite one large continuity error), clever, humorous and just plain great fun.
But it's not just a fun ride, it's an unexpectedly affecting piece.
Edited By Damien on 1223142634
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:08 pm
by Penelope
Appropriately, after 2 hours of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, it was time for the second movie: Definitely, Maybe. If you've seen the movie, you know why that's appropriate; this one we liked quite a bit--too many modern romantic comedies are so egregiously bad, that a movie like this, which hits the target more often than it misses, but never quite makes a bullseye, it's tempting to overpraise it. But when Definitely, Maybe works, it works very well--I liked the idea of sexual politics played against the backdrop of the Clinton administration, and it does keep you guessing as to who he ends up with; plus, it genuinely earns the misty-eyed response in the final reel.
Posted: Mon Sep 29, 2008 6:55 pm
by Penelope
With both myself and mom under the weather, I rented some recent releases to catch up on 2008. Unfortunately, first up was the dreadful, headache-inducing Vantage Point, an excessively convoluted thriller that's interesting for about half an hour, then becomes increasingly tiresome. Marring the film even further is the fact that the sound mixing is incredibly awful--the dialogue too low, the music and effects too loud--half the time we had no idea what was being said. And, like The Dark Knight, how in hell did this extraordinarily violent film--the body count must be in the hundreds--get a PG-13 rating? Unbelievable.
Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2008 1:00 am
by barrybrooks8
I saw two movies tonight.
First was The Last Mistress. I had seen Fat Girl years ago and thought it was interesting and different and knowing nothing about TLM, I gave it a chance and I'm glad I did. Asia Argento was incredible. What I liked best was how her character didn't seem to realize it was the 1830's, almost like a rock star had been transported to that time. Slumping, snarling, laughing, screaming, and drinking blood (no kidding), while all the other "ladies" sat up straight and spoke when spoken to. The sets were French-ly lush and the light humor was just right. B+, maybe A-. Argento may make my year end list....
Then I saw Towelhead. Also, a thorough delight. Again, knowing very little beyond the poster and metacritic score, it was a fresh take on neighbors, suburbia (which has been done to death, especially by Ball, but his awkward direction actually benefited the movie), sex and sexuality, youth, and culture. Because every five minutes another shocker comes along, it's hard to mention anything happening without it being a spoiler. At times the story is preposterous and the late 80's/early 90's fashions were a little off (Toni Collette's hair was too today and I didn't understand why a sweater was necessary during the day in March in Houston, Texas), was overall I laughed quite a lot (at things no one else seemed to think were funny) and I thought Aaron Eckhart was excellent as the nosey next-door oddity and creepazoid. His best since In the Company of Men. Another B+, with a possible Summer Bishil in the (sorta) title role making my year-end list.
Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2008 4:57 am
by rain Bard
Oh I totally agree with you. I just suspect that a good number of voters still don't see much of a distinction. To a lot of people animation is still considered valuable mostly as a technique of getting kids interested in watching, not as a worthy artform in its own right.
Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2008 8:50 pm
by criddic3
--rain Bard wrote:I tend to remain skeptical about adult-oriented animated fare getting nominations in the animated category. Persepolis was lucky to come out during a year where there were few decent animated "family movies". And it has a young girl as a protagonist (at least until she grows up) to help smooth it into the category. This one seems more strictly-for-grownups which seems a hindrance.
On the other hand, might it qualify for Best Documentary as well? A hat trick of Animated, Documentary, and Foreign nominations would be quite a coup...
That shouldn't be the case, though. If it was geared towards kids, it would be Best Family Movie of the Year, not Best Animated Feature.
Edited By Big Magilla on 1241382296