Biopics have always been a staple of film. They're pre-packaged stories that appeal to audiences because they actually happened. Most people remember the people and stories which make for very appealing cinema. It also appeals to audiences because it offers the opportunity to critic how accurately the characters are portrayed. Most people wouldn't care if Phillip Seymour-Hoffman played a gay writer in an original screenplay but as soon as he is cast as Truman Capote, it's a meaty role.
The Last King of Scotland is a story based on the reign of Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin. During his tenure, Amin was responsible for the deaths of more than 300,000 of his countries people. This story is told through the eyes of his personal physician, a Scottish med student played by James MacAvoy. The scenery is beautiful. As it should be. It still shocks me that a country that is so geographically stunning has been the grounds for hundreds of years of civil war. To the acting, James MacAvoy is very good as the young med student who finds himself thrust into the center of a madman's world. The transition he makes from an awe-inspired young man to a fearful one is excellent. Forrest Whitaker really captures the character of Idi Amin. He plays the part with a charming danger that at first is appealing but quicly (and violently) turns hostile.
For biopic fans, The Last King of Scotland has what you ordered. It doesn't reinvent the wheel by any means, but offers a solid take on the story and life of it's main character.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Theory of film critiquing
There is a certain talent for watching movies. Just the same as learning in school, watching films often enough builds an understanding of what works and what does not. Not everyone develops the eye, and that's where the difference lies. Like most anything, some people got it and some people don't.
One aspect of film critiquing that has bothered me for some time is the idea that a film is, 'good for what it is'. This is a cop-out. It is unfair to review a film based on other films of it's genre. Why? Because that puts the film in a box. Movies should be compared to all others. They should be compared to the art of filmmaking as a whole. To put that statement in perspective, let's say that (theoretically) someone could say Mama Mia is a good musical and give it a rating of 75%. At the same time, that same person could say Terminator Salvation is a basic action film and give it a rating of 60%. But if they had compared the overall quality against each other, Terminator Salvation is a superior film, just not as good in it's genre. You see what I mean? There is a point at which you simply cannot review a movie for 'what it is'. It is too irresponsible.
Another fault in film critiquing is trying to appease personal opinion. By saying, 'if you like action movies, you'll like this' is once again, irresponsible. There is a point at which personal taste and film quality cross. Think of it as an X and Y axis. There is a point at which opinion and quality meet. The area under which the two points meet is considered fair game for personal tastes. The area beyond where the two points meet is where tastes no longer can factor into the quality of the film. After that point, personal opinion is pointless because you simply can't review a movie based on what you like. For example, someone saying they think Jackie Brown sucked because it wasn't very action-packed. Well, that's not the point of Jackie Brown so what does it matter? If you are watching Jackie Brown expecting to see action, you obviously have a poor view of film.
I feel that the more and more I speak with people about film, the more frustrated I become. It's that these people don't understand what constitutes a good film. The same way I wouldn't try to compare Kanye West to Frank Sinatra because I know so little about what makes either great, people should not do the same with movies.
One aspect of film critiquing that has bothered me for some time is the idea that a film is, 'good for what it is'. This is a cop-out. It is unfair to review a film based on other films of it's genre. Why? Because that puts the film in a box. Movies should be compared to all others. They should be compared to the art of filmmaking as a whole. To put that statement in perspective, let's say that (theoretically) someone could say Mama Mia is a good musical and give it a rating of 75%. At the same time, that same person could say Terminator Salvation is a basic action film and give it a rating of 60%. But if they had compared the overall quality against each other, Terminator Salvation is a superior film, just not as good in it's genre. You see what I mean? There is a point at which you simply cannot review a movie for 'what it is'. It is too irresponsible.
Another fault in film critiquing is trying to appease personal opinion. By saying, 'if you like action movies, you'll like this' is once again, irresponsible. There is a point at which personal taste and film quality cross. Think of it as an X and Y axis. There is a point at which opinion and quality meet. The area under which the two points meet is considered fair game for personal tastes. The area beyond where the two points meet is where tastes no longer can factor into the quality of the film. After that point, personal opinion is pointless because you simply can't review a movie based on what you like. For example, someone saying they think Jackie Brown sucked because it wasn't very action-packed. Well, that's not the point of Jackie Brown so what does it matter? If you are watching Jackie Brown expecting to see action, you obviously have a poor view of film.
I feel that the more and more I speak with people about film, the more frustrated I become. It's that these people don't understand what constitutes a good film. The same way I wouldn't try to compare Kanye West to Frank Sinatra because I know so little about what makes either great, people should not do the same with movies.
13 Going On 30- girl time
Commonly known as the 'chick flick', movies that appeal strictly to the female demographic often have a very specific style. The lead is always a strong woman. Some of the emphasis of the film includes love, friendship, and fashion (ok, maybe not that last part). Females are attracted to these stories and for every reason: they're more often than not, relatable.
13 Going On 30 is the story of a just-turned 13 year old who, unsatisfied with her current social situation, wishes to be 30 years old and POOF she wakes up 17 years older. She's attractive, successful, and fashionable. But she's also a complete bitch. Jennifer Garner is the lead and as chick flick leads go, she's very good. Unlike most leads, she brings remarkably good brand of physical comedy to the role. Which really is not surprising because of her filmographic history of starring in action pieces. She's also a very charming actress, which makes her naturally likeable. The supporting roles are not bad, notably a funny performance by Andy Serkis (he of Gollum fame), but normally solid Mark Ruffalo seems like he's mailing it in. The story is passable but not original. The writing is a little predictable but Garner carries most of it.
Chick flicks generally drive dudes away in droves. They have good reason, chick flicks are naturally unappealing in every way. The fear of your girlfriend saying, "Let's watch a cute movie!" is likened to being told your cheque just bounced. However, 13 Going On 30 wouldn't be the death sentence. Garner does a superb job, and it doesn't hurt she's attractive. Women will hae a fun time with this movie.
13 Going On 30 is the story of a just-turned 13 year old who, unsatisfied with her current social situation, wishes to be 30 years old and POOF she wakes up 17 years older. She's attractive, successful, and fashionable. But she's also a complete bitch. Jennifer Garner is the lead and as chick flick leads go, she's very good. Unlike most leads, she brings remarkably good brand of physical comedy to the role. Which really is not surprising because of her filmographic history of starring in action pieces. She's also a very charming actress, which makes her naturally likeable. The supporting roles are not bad, notably a funny performance by Andy Serkis (he of Gollum fame), but normally solid Mark Ruffalo seems like he's mailing it in. The story is passable but not original. The writing is a little predictable but Garner carries most of it.
Chick flicks generally drive dudes away in droves. They have good reason, chick flicks are naturally unappealing in every way. The fear of your girlfriend saying, "Let's watch a cute movie!" is likened to being told your cheque just bounced. However, 13 Going On 30 wouldn't be the death sentence. Garner does a superb job, and it doesn't hurt she's attractive. Women will hae a fun time with this movie.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Fargo- ya? Oh ya.
Since their breakout film Blood Simple was released in 1984, the Coen brothers have been two of the more unique filmmakers of our time. They are a rare breed of filmmakers who have their own unique style and trademark that is recognizable to most moviegoers. Yet when they dabbled in alternative genres they do so seamlessly. Few filmmakers out there can say the same for themselves.
Fargo is the story of a man going through some financial difficulties who hires some small-time criminals to kidnap his wife in order to extort his father-in-law. When the proverbial shiznat hits the fan, a pregnant police deputy sets out to solve the crime. To most, this film comes off as a straight-up black comedy. It's oddball characters and situations seem to be straight out of a comedy 101 course. However, when you break down the film to it's bare parts this is more of a crime drama than comedy. The trick is in the writing. Fargo is a story about what small-time, average people would do when they become caught up in circumstances outside their understanding. Then you add in the Minnesota setting and all of a sudden our characters talk in funny accents and say funny things. But keep in mind this is how people talk in Minnesota. The cast are excellent as they play the characters very straight-laced but take full advantage of the perfect writing. In one memorable scene, William H. Macy practices what he's going to say when he calls his father-in-law to tell him about his wife being kidnapped. Wouldn't your average person do something similar? He's no pro, he's just a guy who's done something a little over his head. He has no idea what he's doing so he practices. It just so happens this situation is very funny. See what I'm getting at? Or the scene where the wife, in an attempt to elude her captors, takes off at a run with a sack over her head. She can't see so she's running around like a whacko which is what any normal person would do, but it's funny. This is why when the film turns violent it's such a shock. It really is not shocking at all, we just think it is.
To sum it up, Fargo is what intelligent film making is all about. It's a story that is written so perfectly that it appears to be something more than it is. Imagine watching two pit bulls fighting and one kills the other in brutal fashion. Messed up, right? Now replace those pit bulls with chihuahua's and have a similar result. It'd be funny up until one dog is brutally killed. That's Fargo.
Fargo is the story of a man going through some financial difficulties who hires some small-time criminals to kidnap his wife in order to extort his father-in-law. When the proverbial shiznat hits the fan, a pregnant police deputy sets out to solve the crime. To most, this film comes off as a straight-up black comedy. It's oddball characters and situations seem to be straight out of a comedy 101 course. However, when you break down the film to it's bare parts this is more of a crime drama than comedy. The trick is in the writing. Fargo is a story about what small-time, average people would do when they become caught up in circumstances outside their understanding. Then you add in the Minnesota setting and all of a sudden our characters talk in funny accents and say funny things. But keep in mind this is how people talk in Minnesota. The cast are excellent as they play the characters very straight-laced but take full advantage of the perfect writing. In one memorable scene, William H. Macy practices what he's going to say when he calls his father-in-law to tell him about his wife being kidnapped. Wouldn't your average person do something similar? He's no pro, he's just a guy who's done something a little over his head. He has no idea what he's doing so he practices. It just so happens this situation is very funny. See what I'm getting at? Or the scene where the wife, in an attempt to elude her captors, takes off at a run with a sack over her head. She can't see so she's running around like a whacko which is what any normal person would do, but it's funny. This is why when the film turns violent it's such a shock. It really is not shocking at all, we just think it is.
To sum it up, Fargo is what intelligent film making is all about. It's a story that is written so perfectly that it appears to be something more than it is. Imagine watching two pit bulls fighting and one kills the other in brutal fashion. Messed up, right? Now replace those pit bulls with chihuahua's and have a similar result. It'd be funny up until one dog is brutally killed. That's Fargo.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
The Motorcycle Diaries- Che, eh?
One reason I love watching foreign films is because of the high ratio of quality films to poor films. Simple law of averages: Hollywood produces 99% of all films a domestic fan would see (not the real stat, but it's a healthy estimate), which means the average fan is exposed to more poor films. When a foreign film is good enough to earn an American release, it's generally the best film of that country. Hence, we never get to see the poor films from other countries. That's why I love foreign films, I'm only ever exposed to the good stuff.
The Motorcycle Diaries is the story of a pair of young, educated and ultimately naive students who decided to travel through South America on motorcycle. They have unique personalities but share one common trait: the desire to do good. This trait is tested when they witness the plight of the poor and sick of Latin America. The experience shapes both their lives. The Motorcycle Diaries is a beautiful film. The cinematography hints at a true passion for the subject material. It comes across that those who worked on the film had a great understanding for the places and people of the story. It's a very genuine film in this regard. The acting is superb, featuring what was a breakout performance for Gael Garcia Bernal as a pre-revolutionist Che Gueverra. He plays the role with a natural ease that is in stark contrast to the method style of American cinema. Perhaps that is what I loved most about this film; it's daring, it's true to it's subject material, and is not a Hollywood story of inspiration but one of self-exploration.
Films are powerful in the respect that one rarely comes across one that truly changes a viewer. For those who have experienced this, it is hard to describe to someone who hasn't. Without trying to sound pretentious, the result is like being rewired. One feels different after wards but still the same. The Motorcycle Diaries is less of a must-see as it is a requirement for film lovers.
The Motorcycle Diaries is the story of a pair of young, educated and ultimately naive students who decided to travel through South America on motorcycle. They have unique personalities but share one common trait: the desire to do good. This trait is tested when they witness the plight of the poor and sick of Latin America. The experience shapes both their lives. The Motorcycle Diaries is a beautiful film. The cinematography hints at a true passion for the subject material. It comes across that those who worked on the film had a great understanding for the places and people of the story. It's a very genuine film in this regard. The acting is superb, featuring what was a breakout performance for Gael Garcia Bernal as a pre-revolutionist Che Gueverra. He plays the role with a natural ease that is in stark contrast to the method style of American cinema. Perhaps that is what I loved most about this film; it's daring, it's true to it's subject material, and is not a Hollywood story of inspiration but one of self-exploration.
Films are powerful in the respect that one rarely comes across one that truly changes a viewer. For those who have experienced this, it is hard to describe to someone who hasn't. Without trying to sound pretentious, the result is like being rewired. One feels different after wards but still the same. The Motorcycle Diaries is less of a must-see as it is a requirement for film lovers.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The Hurt Locker- war is a drug, it never changes
War movies used to be about history. They used to be about the people who were effected. Then along came the 60's. That generation were more in touch with the political effects of war. Vietnam become a symbol for a poor government. Naturally, films followed suit. They became protests of political expression but were still about the people. In the current global state, war movies have become deformed versions of those landmarks. The real heart of what war movies represented was lost.
The Hurt Locker is the story of three IED (Incendiary Explosive Device) experts (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce). Like any team, they are unique individuals trying to find a cohesive way to work together before their tour is up. Naturally, trouble arises with the addition of a new team leader named Will James (Jeremy Renner). Therein already lies an unbelievable amount of dramatic potential. Either they understand each other or they die. Either they learn to work as a team or they die. Either they get over their individual issues or they die. Kathryn Bigelow does an excellent job directing her actors and building the tension. In scenes where they're defusing a bomb, the film makes you less worried about the actual terrorist threat and more about the threat they pose to each other. All the while, Bigelow keeps the film a neutral look on war. Although it never focuses heavily on the civilian or terrorist lives, the film conveys their issues effectively in passing. It makes you angry at the terrorists but not outright hate them. It makes you frustrated with the civilians but sympathize with their situation. It makes you question the troops but feel their individual views on war, duty, and survival.
In a genre that has seemingly lost it's way since the beginning of the war on terror and conflict in the middle east, The Hurt Locker stands as an example of how to interpret the situation logically. This is easily an early leader as one of the best flicks this year. Boom goes the dynamite.
The Hurt Locker is the story of three IED (Incendiary Explosive Device) experts (Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty, Guy Pearce). Like any team, they are unique individuals trying to find a cohesive way to work together before their tour is up. Naturally, trouble arises with the addition of a new team leader named Will James (Jeremy Renner). Therein already lies an unbelievable amount of dramatic potential. Either they understand each other or they die. Either they learn to work as a team or they die. Either they get over their individual issues or they die. Kathryn Bigelow does an excellent job directing her actors and building the tension. In scenes where they're defusing a bomb, the film makes you less worried about the actual terrorist threat and more about the threat they pose to each other. All the while, Bigelow keeps the film a neutral look on war. Although it never focuses heavily on the civilian or terrorist lives, the film conveys their issues effectively in passing. It makes you angry at the terrorists but not outright hate them. It makes you frustrated with the civilians but sympathize with their situation. It makes you question the troops but feel their individual views on war, duty, and survival.
In a genre that has seemingly lost it's way since the beginning of the war on terror and conflict in the middle east, The Hurt Locker stands as an example of how to interpret the situation logically. This is easily an early leader as one of the best flicks this year. Boom goes the dynamite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)