I'm back with a whopping three new reviews. Two Oscar contenders and one far from Oscar contender. I forgot to mention that as my New Year's resolution, I plan to mix the old with the new. That means that at least one out of every ten reviews will be a film from the 1980s or older. I know, it's sad that we can call some of those movies old now, but hey...at least 15 years has passed now. So, with that said, here are three new movies to read up on. Check back later.
Closer
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
Dan sees Alice get hit by a car. He sees that she makes it to the hospital and back okay. They fall in love. He writes a book about her. He’s photographed for the book by Anna. He falls in love with her. Anna falls in love with Larry. Larry was the subject of a practical joke that leads him to her. Larry falls in love with Anna. The resulting love square complicates their lives and everything gets a bit too personal. It becomes hard to distinguish the truth from the lies and even harder to discern who can be trusted and what actions will be taken next.
Patrick Marber wrote the screenplay based off of his own stage play. The dialogue contained within is some of the most compelling to hear delivered. It’s how you wish you could talk. The flow and the creativity and the back and forth works very naturally on the screen, but you’d be hard pressed to find people that actually talk in this manner on a regular basis. There aren’t awkward pauses and everyone knows exactly what to say at just the right moment. It’s flawless, which makes it imperfect and unreal. But it’s still very interesting to watch, and I admire the style.
The most interesting thing about the movie is that the action happens off camera. The film spans nearly 5 years of their lives. The only way you know time has passed is that they make reference to it while talking to each other. You aren’t left in the dark about the time changes for very long at all. The situation is not treated like a mystery. However, all the lying, cheating and deceit happens during the unseen transitions. As a result, you never fully know who’s being honest in a particular situation. Yet, I still tended to take everyone at his or her word for whatever reason. The film seemed brutally honest, even though there was always a chance that the entire thing was a lie.
With the good comes the bad. Okay, not bad, but kinda lame. The ending got really trite really fast. It began to lose me with the way it attempted to revisit memories and themes and everything that goes along with such things. It seemed hokey and too typically storybook. However, leave it to director Mike Nichols to end it on a redeeming note. It’s no coincidence most of his movies are critically acclaimed. There’s just something about the very last shot of the movie that wraps it all up for me. The whole timeframe of the movie makes much more sense based on this one simple shot.
While I don’t think the film is mind-blowingly original or innovative, it still works. The performances are great. The script works in an unusually poetic way. The film simply resonates.
++++++++++
Bad Education
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
Enrique Goded is a cult movie director. He brings the weird and off-the-wall stories you find in the back pages of the paper to the big screen with reckless abandon. However, he’s struggling to find an idea worthy enough to use for his next feature. Enter Ignacio. Ignacio and Enrique were childhood pals. They did everything together, and I mean everything. That is until the Priest at the school discovered them and got extremely jealous. Ignacio has written a script based on his life during school and a fictionalized version of what happened in the two young men’s adult lives. Could this be the movie Enrique’s been looking for, or will it all hit too close to home?
Writer/Director Pedro Almodóvar comes at us again with his atypical approach to filmmaking. The films he makes always take on this cheesy B-movie quality. The acting is usually over the top and the story starts relatively normal then veers farther into ridiculous territory as time goes on. The movies are also usually graphic and crude. This film is virtually no exception. The cult aspect is definitely there, and the camp value presents itself in the storyline eventually as well. However, there are certain qualities that don’t match up to the norm.
First is Gael García Bernal (“Y Tu Mamá También,” “The Motorcycle Diaries”), who plays a triple role astonishingly well. There’s great balance between his primary character, the person in the flashbacks, and the person he’s portraying in Enrique’s movie. There are obvious differences and various approaches given to each role he takes on. Contrast to that Fele Martínez (“Open Your Eyes,” “Talk to Her”) as Enrique. While he and the other actors aren’t wincingly bad, they certainly don’t show off nearly as much range as Bernal, and tend to be more stagy and transparent with their performances. I can only assume this is all deliberate, because Almodóvar is that kind of director.
The other thing missing is the graphic nature and the nudity. This is the most toned down NC-17 film I’ve seen so far. Yes, there are indications of homosexual relationships. Yes, there are even sex scenes. But nothing is shown. There is the whole pedophilia issue, but once again nothing even remotely scandalous is actually put up on the screen. In a way, it’s disappointing. What’s the point of having a rating associated with carnality if it’s not taken advantage of? As a straight male in a healthy relationship I say bring on the male nudity. Audiences have proven they can take it in such films as “The Dreamers” and “Young Adam.” Now, this rant isn’t solely directed at the film. Even though I’m sad to see that some of the explicitness I’ve come to expect from Pedro’s work is missing, I’m also sad to see that the film was probably unjustly given it’s misleading adult rating.
Almodóvar’s films are not bad; they’re just given that illusion. He doesn’t go to the extent that Guy Maddin does, but Pedro’s films still require a little getting used to. The cinematography by José Luis Alcaine looks beautiful and fills the emotional gaps the acting leaves behind to paint a more complete picture. If you haven’t liked Almodóvar’s previous work, this one shouldn’t be any different. However, if you have an open mind, can handle subtitles, and want to see a stunning film with a great performance, then give this film a shot.
++++++++++
Fat Albert
Review by Jon Waterman
**
Fat Albert and the gang are going about their normal cartoon lives, when all of a sudden they hear an ominous crying sound. They discover that a teenage girl, watching the show is deeply saddened and the tears are penetrating their world. Being the proud problem solvers that they are, the whole gang (minus pipsqueak Russell, who stays back to guard the junkyard) leaps through her television set. Now the gang has problems of their own. First, they have to help the crying girl Doris. Then they have to find a way to get back to their cartoon existence before they fade away into celluloid dust.
I’m glad this movie is not just a live action version of the cartoon, like the horrendous “Scooby-Doo.” Not only does this film acknowledge it’s animated roots, it embraces it and makes the original show a driving force for part of the plot. All new animation was created for the film and it turned out very nicely. I would have liked to see a little more back and forth between the two worlds, though. And as ridiculous as it all sounds, the plot actually is made to make sense (in a fantasy-world way) by the end of the film. Overall, it’s a good way to bring a cartoon to a live action setting without having to go the expensive and usually disastrous “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”/”Garfield” route.
The problem with incorporating the show into the film like it did (besides the shameless DVD plug, which never comes into the narrative like I half-expected it would), is that the kids at Doris’ high school have never heard of it before, it seems. Fat Albert and the gang are a pretty recognizable group. You’d think they’d have a passing recollection of the cartoon from their childhood, especially if the little children in the film do. Instead, everyone just acts like they’re dressing funny or they mock Albert because he is Fat, in an intentionally un-clever way. Another flaw is automatically assuming that everyone watching is familiar with all the characters. I’m sure that some of the audience hasn’t seen the show in a while (or at all) and may not exactly know what’s going on.
The casting worked out pretty well as far as matching up the looks. As far as acting goes, it was pretty hit or miss. I’m not expecting great stuff here, but at least put a little effort into it. The biggest offenders were those lead actors/half-brothers from “You Got Served.” One plays the most pathetic villain I’ve seen on screen in a long time, while the other plays Dumb Donald. You’d think if a little nepotism like this was going on, we could have seen Keenan Thompson (who plays Fat Albert just fine) get his former partner Kel Mitchell involved. Out of the rest of the gang, I really liked Alphonso McAuley’s performance as Bucky. It’s a good example of how to play a cartoon character without overdoing it. Just say the words naturally. The appearance will do its job. With a cast this big, it’s tough to get them all involved or to make them all noticeable. Maybe a couple more of them should have stayed back with Russell, who’s obviously not live action, because they couldn’t find a suitable match.
Part of the reason for the bad acting is that it’s a cartoon related project and it’s a kid related project, so I can excuse it. As a kids movie, I think it could be better. The jokes are rather blah, but I still laughed more than I have at similar films. I don’t think there’s enough conflict and the bad guy is never put out there as a formidable threat, so you can’t cheer for Fat Albert. However, it has the Bill Cosby (who not only created the cartoon, but also co-wrote this picture with frequent collaborator Charles Kipps) trademark good message complete with a touching ending sequence. It’s not a bad film for your kids to see by any means and it’s very family friendly. However, there’s a chance both you and your kids may get bored. After all, there’s a overly long song and dance sequence and an over done fish out of water mall sequence that was done much better in both “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and the Howie Mandel classic “Walk Like a Man.”
I can’t say I was exactly clamoring for this picture to be made, but I certainly don’t think it’s something I would immediately throw back into the junkyard. I wish the Brown Hornet could have made an appearance. Maybe next time. This film will just have to hold you over until we finally get a big screen version of “Picture Pages.”
Closer
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
Dan sees Alice get hit by a car. He sees that she makes it to the hospital and back okay. They fall in love. He writes a book about her. He’s photographed for the book by Anna. He falls in love with her. Anna falls in love with Larry. Larry was the subject of a practical joke that leads him to her. Larry falls in love with Anna. The resulting love square complicates their lives and everything gets a bit too personal. It becomes hard to distinguish the truth from the lies and even harder to discern who can be trusted and what actions will be taken next.
Patrick Marber wrote the screenplay based off of his own stage play. The dialogue contained within is some of the most compelling to hear delivered. It’s how you wish you could talk. The flow and the creativity and the back and forth works very naturally on the screen, but you’d be hard pressed to find people that actually talk in this manner on a regular basis. There aren’t awkward pauses and everyone knows exactly what to say at just the right moment. It’s flawless, which makes it imperfect and unreal. But it’s still very interesting to watch, and I admire the style.
The most interesting thing about the movie is that the action happens off camera. The film spans nearly 5 years of their lives. The only way you know time has passed is that they make reference to it while talking to each other. You aren’t left in the dark about the time changes for very long at all. The situation is not treated like a mystery. However, all the lying, cheating and deceit happens during the unseen transitions. As a result, you never fully know who’s being honest in a particular situation. Yet, I still tended to take everyone at his or her word for whatever reason. The film seemed brutally honest, even though there was always a chance that the entire thing was a lie.
With the good comes the bad. Okay, not bad, but kinda lame. The ending got really trite really fast. It began to lose me with the way it attempted to revisit memories and themes and everything that goes along with such things. It seemed hokey and too typically storybook. However, leave it to director Mike Nichols to end it on a redeeming note. It’s no coincidence most of his movies are critically acclaimed. There’s just something about the very last shot of the movie that wraps it all up for me. The whole timeframe of the movie makes much more sense based on this one simple shot.
While I don’t think the film is mind-blowingly original or innovative, it still works. The performances are great. The script works in an unusually poetic way. The film simply resonates.
++++++++++
Bad Education
Review by Jon Waterman
***1/2
Enrique Goded is a cult movie director. He brings the weird and off-the-wall stories you find in the back pages of the paper to the big screen with reckless abandon. However, he’s struggling to find an idea worthy enough to use for his next feature. Enter Ignacio. Ignacio and Enrique were childhood pals. They did everything together, and I mean everything. That is until the Priest at the school discovered them and got extremely jealous. Ignacio has written a script based on his life during school and a fictionalized version of what happened in the two young men’s adult lives. Could this be the movie Enrique’s been looking for, or will it all hit too close to home?
Writer/Director Pedro Almodóvar comes at us again with his atypical approach to filmmaking. The films he makes always take on this cheesy B-movie quality. The acting is usually over the top and the story starts relatively normal then veers farther into ridiculous territory as time goes on. The movies are also usually graphic and crude. This film is virtually no exception. The cult aspect is definitely there, and the camp value presents itself in the storyline eventually as well. However, there are certain qualities that don’t match up to the norm.
First is Gael García Bernal (“Y Tu Mamá También,” “The Motorcycle Diaries”), who plays a triple role astonishingly well. There’s great balance between his primary character, the person in the flashbacks, and the person he’s portraying in Enrique’s movie. There are obvious differences and various approaches given to each role he takes on. Contrast to that Fele Martínez (“Open Your Eyes,” “Talk to Her”) as Enrique. While he and the other actors aren’t wincingly bad, they certainly don’t show off nearly as much range as Bernal, and tend to be more stagy and transparent with their performances. I can only assume this is all deliberate, because Almodóvar is that kind of director.
The other thing missing is the graphic nature and the nudity. This is the most toned down NC-17 film I’ve seen so far. Yes, there are indications of homosexual relationships. Yes, there are even sex scenes. But nothing is shown. There is the whole pedophilia issue, but once again nothing even remotely scandalous is actually put up on the screen. In a way, it’s disappointing. What’s the point of having a rating associated with carnality if it’s not taken advantage of? As a straight male in a healthy relationship I say bring on the male nudity. Audiences have proven they can take it in such films as “The Dreamers” and “Young Adam.” Now, this rant isn’t solely directed at the film. Even though I’m sad to see that some of the explicitness I’ve come to expect from Pedro’s work is missing, I’m also sad to see that the film was probably unjustly given it’s misleading adult rating.
Almodóvar’s films are not bad; they’re just given that illusion. He doesn’t go to the extent that Guy Maddin does, but Pedro’s films still require a little getting used to. The cinematography by José Luis Alcaine looks beautiful and fills the emotional gaps the acting leaves behind to paint a more complete picture. If you haven’t liked Almodóvar’s previous work, this one shouldn’t be any different. However, if you have an open mind, can handle subtitles, and want to see a stunning film with a great performance, then give this film a shot.
++++++++++
Fat Albert
Review by Jon Waterman
**
Fat Albert and the gang are going about their normal cartoon lives, when all of a sudden they hear an ominous crying sound. They discover that a teenage girl, watching the show is deeply saddened and the tears are penetrating their world. Being the proud problem solvers that they are, the whole gang (minus pipsqueak Russell, who stays back to guard the junkyard) leaps through her television set. Now the gang has problems of their own. First, they have to help the crying girl Doris. Then they have to find a way to get back to their cartoon existence before they fade away into celluloid dust.
I’m glad this movie is not just a live action version of the cartoon, like the horrendous “Scooby-Doo.” Not only does this film acknowledge it’s animated roots, it embraces it and makes the original show a driving force for part of the plot. All new animation was created for the film and it turned out very nicely. I would have liked to see a little more back and forth between the two worlds, though. And as ridiculous as it all sounds, the plot actually is made to make sense (in a fantasy-world way) by the end of the film. Overall, it’s a good way to bring a cartoon to a live action setting without having to go the expensive and usually disastrous “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”/”Garfield” route.
The problem with incorporating the show into the film like it did (besides the shameless DVD plug, which never comes into the narrative like I half-expected it would), is that the kids at Doris’ high school have never heard of it before, it seems. Fat Albert and the gang are a pretty recognizable group. You’d think they’d have a passing recollection of the cartoon from their childhood, especially if the little children in the film do. Instead, everyone just acts like they’re dressing funny or they mock Albert because he is Fat, in an intentionally un-clever way. Another flaw is automatically assuming that everyone watching is familiar with all the characters. I’m sure that some of the audience hasn’t seen the show in a while (or at all) and may not exactly know what’s going on.
The casting worked out pretty well as far as matching up the looks. As far as acting goes, it was pretty hit or miss. I’m not expecting great stuff here, but at least put a little effort into it. The biggest offenders were those lead actors/half-brothers from “You Got Served.” One plays the most pathetic villain I’ve seen on screen in a long time, while the other plays Dumb Donald. You’d think if a little nepotism like this was going on, we could have seen Keenan Thompson (who plays Fat Albert just fine) get his former partner Kel Mitchell involved. Out of the rest of the gang, I really liked Alphonso McAuley’s performance as Bucky. It’s a good example of how to play a cartoon character without overdoing it. Just say the words naturally. The appearance will do its job. With a cast this big, it’s tough to get them all involved or to make them all noticeable. Maybe a couple more of them should have stayed back with Russell, who’s obviously not live action, because they couldn’t find a suitable match.
Part of the reason for the bad acting is that it’s a cartoon related project and it’s a kid related project, so I can excuse it. As a kids movie, I think it could be better. The jokes are rather blah, but I still laughed more than I have at similar films. I don’t think there’s enough conflict and the bad guy is never put out there as a formidable threat, so you can’t cheer for Fat Albert. However, it has the Bill Cosby (who not only created the cartoon, but also co-wrote this picture with frequent collaborator Charles Kipps) trademark good message complete with a touching ending sequence. It’s not a bad film for your kids to see by any means and it’s very family friendly. However, there’s a chance both you and your kids may get bored. After all, there’s a overly long song and dance sequence and an over done fish out of water mall sequence that was done much better in both “Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and the Howie Mandel classic “Walk Like a Man.”
I can’t say I was exactly clamoring for this picture to be made, but I certainly don’t think it’s something I would immediately throw back into the junkyard. I wish the Brown Hornet could have made an appearance. Maybe next time. This film will just have to hold you over until we finally get a big screen version of “Picture Pages.”
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home