Well, before I get to my review for Ocean's Twelve, I'm going to watch and review both the old and new versions of Ocean's Eleven. I also have Irreversible on deck. For now, take a look at my thoughts on two big awards contenders: The Aviator and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.
The Aviator
Review by Jon Waterman
***
Here we have the biopic for Howard Hughes. He made the most expensive film to date in the late1920s with the epic WWII spectacle, “Hell’s Angels.” He funded the nearly four-million-dollar project himself. The buzz alone made him a hot commodity in the industry. He directed and produced many other films and he wined and dined several top female movie stars. But his first love was always flying. He was an innovator in creating bigger and better aircraft, notoriously losing millions in failed models. He didn’t care about money, he cared about the industry, and so if he had to spend a lot in order to make that next technological leap, he would. This film chronicles his trials and tribulations – literally.
Director Martin Scorsese comes at us again with another overly long period piece. Unlike “Gangs of New York,” this one doesn’t quite work as well. But before I get into all of that stuff, let’s talk about what is effective. The color palette changes depending on where in the chronological timeline the film is. It starts off with just copper and light blue tones. It progresses to have a broader spectrum of colors, although the colorization look never stops. It’s pretty noticeable straight away, but it hardly seems like a gimmick to me because the progression is so gradual.
The acting is good, but not extraordinary. Leonardo DiCaprio (Hughes) has done all this stuff before. He’s played the manipulative, no nonsense type in “Catch Me If You Can” and he’s played a character with mental problems much better in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” Alec Baldwin (Pan Am Head Honcho, Juan Trippe) is always fun to watch. Cate Blanchett does a great impression of Katharine Hepburn, but looks absolutely nothing like her. She was the best actor in the film, and there is a scene between her and Leo where they communicate through the door of his projection room that virtually makes the movie. With that said, as great as Blanchett was in the role, I would have loved to see a better visual match.
Speaking of visual matches, the editing in this film is the worst I’ve possibly ever seen from a major motion picture. It’s definitely the worst I’ve ever seen from an award contender. Either the footage wasn’t covered well enough or Scorsese’s go to editor Thelma Schoonmaker just dropped the ball. It was extremely distracting and I expected much more professionalism from such seasoned experts. As a form of comparison, imagine if I chopped out every “the” in my sentences. You’d still be able to understand what I was saying, but you’d wonder why I’d have a job writing in English. That’s how bad the editing was to me.
I don’t really know what Hughes was like, but it was still fun to watch this rendition. I enjoy watching people at the top of their game. Hughes took charge and always knew how to get exactly what he wanted. Even when he was at his lowest point emotionally, his business skills never faltered. The script by John Logan (“Bats” and the vastly overrated “Gladiator”) didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth, but didn’t really show mastery of such a massive cast and eventful life. The whole experience was just basic. However, the three hours spent in the theater seemed to go by quite quickly. I probably could have stuck around for more. The film doesn’t crash and burn, but like a solitary bag of peanuts, it leaves no impact.
++++++++
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
While making his latest nature film, Steve Zissou’s best friend/right hand man was eaten by a fish never before seen by man. In the brief glance he got, Steve dubbed it a Jaguar Shark. Now, he’s out for revenge. He wants to destroy the creature that took his friend and prove his harshest critics wrong at the same time. If that weren’t enough, a long lost son and a reporter has been added to the mix/crew. Will this be Steve’s swan song or will it be the start of a personal and professional rebirth?
Here we have Wes Anderson’s latest effort. The maestro behind such instant classics as “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums,” like Zissou, has most likely bitten off more than he can chew. His casts have gotten bigger and bigger as has his production value. He’s slowly and steadily entering into dangerous, mainstream territory. This film marks the use of massive sets, exotic locations, and worst of all – special effects.
To create the new species of aquatic life, a combination of stop motion animation and computer graphics work was employed. I don’t really know what the purpose was of constructing them. The spectacle detracted from the main narrative and pulled the focus away from the characters. I would have been perfectly fine had only existing animals been used. I mean, it doesn’t matter what you call the fish, it’s still obvious Ahab is after Moby Dick.
Just like his previous films, the story is divided up into sections. However, this time, I think there were too many divisions and the differences seemed too miniscule to be justified. There are other parts of the script that seemed off to me as well. Written by Anderson and Noah Baumbach (“Kicking and Screaming,” “Highball”), the characterization just wasn’t there. The relationships never developed into anything palpable or understandable. The story took too many detours and contained too many side quests. It got to the point where I couldn’t trust what I saw on the screen as being real. There is a sequence where Steve and his crew are taken hostage. Steve breaks free and starts shooting at the pirates. I thought it was an elaborate dream sequence. It would have been better that way. The whole film was slightly more fantastical than I’m used to seeing from Anderson, but not fantastical enough to allow myself to become immersed.
The most redeeming factor of the film is the acting. Bill Murray does it again. Aside from his take on “Garfield,” he’s quickly become one of my favorite actors. Anjelica Huston is fabulous as the monotone, unfeeling wife of Zissou. The rest of the cast either didn’t impress me or didn’t have a proper opportunity to. Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Bud Cort and Michael Gambon all have relatively limited screen time, which is a shame.
I’m not ready to write Anderson off yet by any means. This film just isn’t up to par with his others. The humor just wasn’t there that much either. It could be that the bar was just set too high. We all know he’s capable. The important thing is to rebound from a less than movie and not become another Woody Allen.
The Aviator
Review by Jon Waterman
***
Here we have the biopic for Howard Hughes. He made the most expensive film to date in the late1920s with the epic WWII spectacle, “Hell’s Angels.” He funded the nearly four-million-dollar project himself. The buzz alone made him a hot commodity in the industry. He directed and produced many other films and he wined and dined several top female movie stars. But his first love was always flying. He was an innovator in creating bigger and better aircraft, notoriously losing millions in failed models. He didn’t care about money, he cared about the industry, and so if he had to spend a lot in order to make that next technological leap, he would. This film chronicles his trials and tribulations – literally.
Director Martin Scorsese comes at us again with another overly long period piece. Unlike “Gangs of New York,” this one doesn’t quite work as well. But before I get into all of that stuff, let’s talk about what is effective. The color palette changes depending on where in the chronological timeline the film is. It starts off with just copper and light blue tones. It progresses to have a broader spectrum of colors, although the colorization look never stops. It’s pretty noticeable straight away, but it hardly seems like a gimmick to me because the progression is so gradual.
The acting is good, but not extraordinary. Leonardo DiCaprio (Hughes) has done all this stuff before. He’s played the manipulative, no nonsense type in “Catch Me If You Can” and he’s played a character with mental problems much better in “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.” Alec Baldwin (Pan Am Head Honcho, Juan Trippe) is always fun to watch. Cate Blanchett does a great impression of Katharine Hepburn, but looks absolutely nothing like her. She was the best actor in the film, and there is a scene between her and Leo where they communicate through the door of his projection room that virtually makes the movie. With that said, as great as Blanchett was in the role, I would have loved to see a better visual match.
Speaking of visual matches, the editing in this film is the worst I’ve possibly ever seen from a major motion picture. It’s definitely the worst I’ve ever seen from an award contender. Either the footage wasn’t covered well enough or Scorsese’s go to editor Thelma Schoonmaker just dropped the ball. It was extremely distracting and I expected much more professionalism from such seasoned experts. As a form of comparison, imagine if I chopped out every “the” in my sentences. You’d still be able to understand what I was saying, but you’d wonder why I’d have a job writing in English. That’s how bad the editing was to me.
I don’t really know what Hughes was like, but it was still fun to watch this rendition. I enjoy watching people at the top of their game. Hughes took charge and always knew how to get exactly what he wanted. Even when he was at his lowest point emotionally, his business skills never faltered. The script by John Logan (“Bats” and the vastly overrated “Gladiator”) didn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth, but didn’t really show mastery of such a massive cast and eventful life. The whole experience was just basic. However, the three hours spent in the theater seemed to go by quite quickly. I probably could have stuck around for more. The film doesn’t crash and burn, but like a solitary bag of peanuts, it leaves no impact.
++++++++
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou
Review by Jon Waterman
**1/2
While making his latest nature film, Steve Zissou’s best friend/right hand man was eaten by a fish never before seen by man. In the brief glance he got, Steve dubbed it a Jaguar Shark. Now, he’s out for revenge. He wants to destroy the creature that took his friend and prove his harshest critics wrong at the same time. If that weren’t enough, a long lost son and a reporter has been added to the mix/crew. Will this be Steve’s swan song or will it be the start of a personal and professional rebirth?
Here we have Wes Anderson’s latest effort. The maestro behind such instant classics as “Rushmore” and “The Royal Tenenbaums,” like Zissou, has most likely bitten off more than he can chew. His casts have gotten bigger and bigger as has his production value. He’s slowly and steadily entering into dangerous, mainstream territory. This film marks the use of massive sets, exotic locations, and worst of all – special effects.
To create the new species of aquatic life, a combination of stop motion animation and computer graphics work was employed. I don’t really know what the purpose was of constructing them. The spectacle detracted from the main narrative and pulled the focus away from the characters. I would have been perfectly fine had only existing animals been used. I mean, it doesn’t matter what you call the fish, it’s still obvious Ahab is after Moby Dick.
Just like his previous films, the story is divided up into sections. However, this time, I think there were too many divisions and the differences seemed too miniscule to be justified. There are other parts of the script that seemed off to me as well. Written by Anderson and Noah Baumbach (“Kicking and Screaming,” “Highball”), the characterization just wasn’t there. The relationships never developed into anything palpable or understandable. The story took too many detours and contained too many side quests. It got to the point where I couldn’t trust what I saw on the screen as being real. There is a sequence where Steve and his crew are taken hostage. Steve breaks free and starts shooting at the pirates. I thought it was an elaborate dream sequence. It would have been better that way. The whole film was slightly more fantastical than I’m used to seeing from Anderson, but not fantastical enough to allow myself to become immersed.
The most redeeming factor of the film is the acting. Bill Murray does it again. Aside from his take on “Garfield,” he’s quickly become one of my favorite actors. Anjelica Huston is fabulous as the monotone, unfeeling wife of Zissou. The rest of the cast either didn’t impress me or didn’t have a proper opportunity to. Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Bud Cort and Michael Gambon all have relatively limited screen time, which is a shame.
I’m not ready to write Anderson off yet by any means. This film just isn’t up to par with his others. The humor just wasn’t there that much either. It could be that the bar was just set too high. We all know he’s capable. The important thing is to rebound from a less than movie and not become another Woody Allen.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home