list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Things We Lost in the Fire on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Things_We_Lost_in_the_Fire/281168/default.aspx Title: Things We Lost in the Fire
Year: 2007
Director: Susanne Bier
Plot: A woman who lost her husband in a random act of violence and a heroin addict who was a lifelong friend of the dearly departed discover that the beloved husband and friend's unfortunate passing is actually a blessing in disguise in Open Hearts director Susanne Bier's Dogme-style drama. When her husband (David Duchovny) was killed, Audrey Burke (Halle Berry) didn't think she would be able to summon the strength to carry on. Jerry Sunborne (Benicio Del Toro) is a heroin addict who was one of the recently deceased's oldest friends in life, but as a result of his addiction Jerry has lost everything that ever mattered to him. When Audrey discovers that Jerry is the one man who could help her move beyond the dire cycle of grieving that she has fallen into, her offer for him to move in with the family provides the addict with just the incentive he needed to finally get his life back in order. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:46:21 GMTThings We Lost in the Fire2007Susanne BierA woman who lost her husband in a random act of violence and a heroin addict who was a lifelong friend of the dearly departed discover that the beloved husband and friend's unfortunate passing is actually a blessing in disguise in Open Hearts director <a href="/players/P___188572/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Susanne Bier</a>'s <i>Dogme</i>-style drama. When her husband (<a href="/players/P____20329/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>David Duchovny</a>) was killed, Audrey Burke (<a href="/players/P_____5863/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Halle Berry</a>) didn't think she would be able to summon the strength to carry on. Jerry Sunborne (<a href="/players/P____18343/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Benicio Del Toro</a>) is a heroin addict who was one of the recently deceased's oldest friends in life, but as a result of his addiction Jerry has lost everything that ever mattered to him. When Audrey discovers that Jerry is the one man who could help her move beyond the dire cycle of grieving that she has fallen into, her offer for him to move in with the family provides the addict with just the incentive he needed to finally get his life back in order. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide353http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s281168.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Things_We_Lost_in_the_Fire/281168/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/17/37380.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/17/2008 5:00:58 PM
Body: Oprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 17 Nov 2008 22:00:58 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/17/2008 5:00:58 PMOprah Winfrey can certainly create a best seller when it comes to books, and her pick of the presidential candidates is on his way to the White House. But can she get behind a movie and contribute to its success? 20th Century Fox seems to hope so, because the studio apparently allowed the talk show host to screen an unfinished cut of Australia in preparation for her November 10 show, which featured the film’s stars, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, as well as a live-via-Skype call-in from filmmaker Baz Luhrman. Fortunately for Fox, Oprah raved about the film, and now the media has latched on to the endorsement, creating some much-needed positive buzz for the Oscar-hopeful. Yet there’s a big problem with all the excitement: Oprah’s film recommendations have hardly been sure-fire champs in the past. Case in point: the first title I came upon while searching for Oprah-select cinema was something called Christmas in the Clouds, a 2005 indie that she chose as her “must see holiday movie,” in O magazine a few years back. The film barely grossed a quarter-million dollars in theaters, but even if her endorsement didn’t occur until its DVD release in November 2006, there’s still no proof of popularity from the rental charts of the time, and two years later fewer than 250 people have rated it on IMDb (not the best for determining how many people have seen it, sure, but such a small number of votes is still somewhat revealing). As for awards recognition, well, it received the Audience Award at the 2001 Austin Film Festival, and it was named the best Native American-themed film the same year at the Santa Fe Film Festival, but the majority of Academy voters probably never even heard of it. Okay, so that is an extreme example of a film that had not even one percent of the marketing budget of Australia. So, let’s take a look at some of the bigger releases that Oprah has recommended more recently. Well, there is Michael Moore’s Sicko, which she labeled “the one movie you must see this summer,” a few weeks prior to its barely wide release in June 2007. Considering its theater count and its genre, the documentary’s final domestic gross of $24.5 million was quite an achievement, especially since only two other docs have grossed more (including Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, which will stay on top for quite awhile with its $119.1 million). Oh, and yes, Sicko earned an Oscar nomination, too. But did Oprah’s statement really have that much impact on Sicko’s success? What about all the other titles with Oprah connections that haven’t performed so well? Films based on her book club selections, from her inaugural title, The Deep End of the Ocean, to the recent adaptation of Love in the Time of Cholera, have rarely been blockbusters, and the three Academy nominations for House of Sand and Fog are hardly thanks to her love for and endorsement of that novel. Of course, film adaptations are not necessarily ever pegged to the praises of their source material, which is why Oprah’s name has not been linked to the expected Oscar contenders The Reader and The Road. Then there are the films she’s been directly involved with. Beloved, which she produced and starred in, earned a middling gross of $22.9 million. Its sole Oscar nomination was for costume design. Her more recent production, The Great Debaters, did a little better money-wise with $30.2 million, but it failed to garner the Academy’s attention. Ignoring the animated films she’s lent her voice to, you have to go back 23 years, long before she had the powers of influence she’s currently known for, to find something as big as Fox would like Australia to be. It was then that The Color Purple earned nearly $100 million and 11 Oscar nominations (none of which it won). As for films that Oprah simply promotes and recommends on her show, there is no clear certainty that she can influence either box office or the Oscars. She’s featured the casts from Crash and Brokeback Mountain, yet she’s also given time to publicize films like Alexander and Things We Lost in the Fire. Last week, after calling Australia “the film we needed to see,” she also helped to sell Marley & Me, a movie that might benefit slightly in increased ticket sales thanks to the appearances by Jennifer Aniston, yet there are no news reports mentioning anything but Aniston’s comments about her ex-husband. There’s likewise little media attention given to the fact that Oprah also apparently saw Seven Pounds, the Will Smith movie that, like Australia, has so far received no reviews. Was there no soundbite from Smith’s appearance earlier this month? Seven Pounds is also a mysterious Oscar contender with some needed positive buzz, though maybe Sony Pictures didn’t think to feed the press anything regarding Oprah’s connection to that film the way Fox has pushed them on the Australia endorsement. And what of Oprah’s praise anyway? She said, “I have not been this excited about a movie since I don’t know when.” How excited? And be more specific. Since forty years ago? Since Titanic? Since Christmas in the Clouds? Is this really the best movie of the year? Other than turning the expectations up a little higher following the recent negativity surrounding Australia, Oprah hasn’t really offered us anything except hope. So, a word to Fox: it’s about time you let the real critics see this alleged masterpiece so we can actually find out if this film has some real chances at an Oscar. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30663.aspx Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 2:46:01 PM
Body: Released: October 19, 2007Director: Susanne Bier*****Why does a widow ask her late husband's best friend-whom she doesn't like in the first place-to move in with her and the children? Why does this widow go off on the aforementioned friend when he is able to coerce one of the children to put their head under the water? And why, praytell, does the widow ask the friend to help her go to sleep by tugging on her ear, like the husband used to? All at once, this actions make from confusing, infuriating and just plain icky moments in Things We Lost in the Fire. When Brian (David Duchovny) is gunned down helping a woman being abused in a parking lot, his wife Audrey (Halle Berry) tries to move on with the help of his friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), the druggie and loser.The fact so much talent is squandered on what is essentially a theater production is sad. Watching the entire two hour movie? Even more depressing. Why is it, since her Oscar for Monster's Ball, Berry can't seem to pick a script worthy of her? Here, she's given little to do besides grieve-all in one tone, mind you. Audrey never generates the sympathy we know director Susanne Bier and writer Allen Loeb are trying to wring out of the situation. Maybe part of the reason is we never truly get to know her. We're introduced to the character after Brian has been killed and only know of their relationship is flashbacks. Then, as the story progresses for Audrey and Jerry, there is a voyeuristic feeling to the endeavor, as if we're seeing things none of us really want to. Almost like the car wreck we don't turn away from. And it's all because of Audrey we feel this way. Not only does she berate Brian for his friendship with Jerry, but she accuses him of stealing money from their car. We never get to the bottom of why they don't get along-the assumption is the drugs; we just watch as Audrey introduces Jerry to her life and then throws him into the deep end of the pool, figuratively speaking. It's actually quite sad she turns to someone outside her "circle" for comfort when there are others she is more comfortable with who get left on the sidelines. We just don't get the chance to understand.The problem isn't Berry or Del Toro or even Duchovny; the acting is fine across the board, maybe even commendable. Bier paces the story slower than a glacier going across the Arctic Sea and because of that, we loose interest quite quickly. There is no flash or anything the least bit involving about the Fire, which turns out to be tangentially related to the plot. Audrey is a woman in mourning and, as such, makes bad decisions for her family. All we want to do is tell her to get with the program and begin to move on.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 18:46:01 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 2:46:01 PMReleased: October 19, 2007Director: Susanne Bier*****Why does a widow ask her late husband's best friend-whom she doesn't like in the first place-to move in with her and the children? Why does this widow go off on the aforementioned friend when he is able to coerce one of the children to put their head under the water? And why, praytell, does the widow ask the friend to help her go to sleep by tugging on her ear, like the husband used to? All at once, this actions make from confusing, infuriating and just plain icky moments in Things We Lost in the Fire. When Brian (David Duchovny) is gunned down helping a woman being abused in a parking lot, his wife Audrey (Halle Berry) tries to move on with the help of his friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro), the druggie and loser.The fact so much talent is squandered on what is essentially a theater production is sad. Watching the entire two hour movie? Even more depressing. Why is it, since her Oscar for Monster's Ball, Berry can't seem to pick a script worthy of her? Here, she's given little to do besides grieve-all in one tone, mind you. Audrey never generates the sympathy we know director Susanne Bier and writer Allen Loeb are trying to wring out of the situation. Maybe part of the reason is we never truly get to know her. We're introduced to the character after Brian has been killed and only know of their relationship is flashbacks. Then, as the story progresses for Audrey and Jerry, there is a voyeuristic feeling to the endeavor, as if we're seeing things none of us really want to. Almost like the car wreck we don't turn away from. And it's all because of Audrey we feel this way. Not only does she berate Brian for his friendship with Jerry, but she accuses him of stealing money from their car. We never get to the bottom of why they don't get along-the assumption is the drugs; we just watch as Audrey introduces Jerry to her life and then throws him into the deep end of the pool, figuratively speaking. It's actually quite sad she turns to someone outside her "circle" for comfort when there are others she is more comfortable with who get left on the sidelines. We just don't get the chance to understand.The problem isn't Berry or Del Toro or even Duchovny; the acting is fine across the board, maybe even commendable. Bier paces the story slower than a glacier going across the Arctic Sea and because of that, we loose interest quite quickly. There is no flash or anything the least bit involving about the Fire, which turns out to be tangentially related to the plot. Audrey is a woman in mourning and, as such, makes bad decisions for her family. All we want to do is tell her to get with the program and begin to move on. http://www.spout.com/blogs/lopezdash/archive/2008/2/8/24885.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: The Movie Blog
Post Date: 2/8/2008 4:14:42 PM
Body: Daydream Nation: Forthcoming teen comedy directed by Michael Goldbach, starring "Heroes" cheerleader Hayden Panettiere and maybe Kieran Culkin, "the producers are hoping to reinvent the coming-of-age story for the 21st century, calling the film an intellectual comedy a la Juno and Election."See also: The Replacements, Can't Hardly Wait, Just Like Heaven, Things We Lost in the Fire.source
]]>Fri, 08 Feb 2008 21:14:42 GMTlopezdashThe Movie Blog2/8/2008 4:14:42 PMDaydream Nation: Forthcoming teen comedy directed by Michael Goldbach, starring &quot;Heroes&quot; cheerleader Hayden Panettiere and maybe Kieran Culkin, &quot;the producers are hoping to reinvent the coming-of-age story for the 21st century, calling the film an intellectual comedy a la Juno and Election.&quot;See also: The Replacements, Can&#39;t Hardly Wait, Just Like Heaven, Things We Lost in the Fire.source http://www.spout.com/blogs/erico_77375/archive/2007/10/31/21332.aspx Post By: erico_77375
Post To: erico_77375 Blog
Post Date: 10/31/2007 11:43:00 PM
Body: It is said that when a good man dies, that his song will resonate to all who loved him. That certainly is the case from Steven, who died trying to keep a man from killing his wife, only to killed along with the wife in a murder/suicide. And what stems from that is the focus of Things We Lost In The Fire, the first American film from Swedish filmmaker Suzanne Bier (After The Wedding, Brothers).Steven (David Duchovony) leaves behind a wife, Audrey (Halle Berry) and two kids. She is a hysterical mess with little to do than to go over the good times she had with her husband and try raising two children on her own. Just before the funeral, she realizes that one person doesn’t know about Steven’s death, his childhood friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro). Audrey doesn’t like Jerry too much, even with Steven was alive. A former lawyer in another life, Jerry is now a heroin junkie living for the day. When everybody turned their back on him, Steven didn’t. Audrey feels that the wrong man has died. Jerry feels the same way.After the funeral, Audrey goes through a suspended stage of mourning, snapping at her kids for the tiniest thing, going through longer stages of insomnia. Jerry decides to try to go clean again, goes to meetings where he finds a friend in a fellow traveler (Allison Lohman). In a moment of clarity, Audrey offers a place in a renovated room to Jerry. She needs help around the place, she says. It’s easy to see that she needs another adult to be around while she copes with her loss. Jerry agrees begrudgingly. He tries to keep himself isolated, but the kids refuse to be ignored. They are intrigued by their father’s best friend, which they’ve only recently known existed at the funeral (no doubt Audrey’s doing). He strikes a friendship with them that they mistaken to be a means of replacing their father. The problem is that Audrey starts to feel that he’s starting to do just that as well. And it is when she pulls the rug out from under him that the story takes its final act to a sad yet satisfactory ending.Things We Lost In The Fire is a good movie that stems from what could be bad stuff. That’s the trick with melodrama; finding characters that you are rooting for, hoping for, to care about and even love. Most melodrama is based on situation instead of character. When scenario dictates of how people respond, it’s rare that you’re going to find true human emotion. We feel sympathy for Jerry, Audrey, and the kids. We wonder if Steven would have been proud of them moving on as they are. When Jerry teeters closer to the edge of losing himself, we are truly afraid for him and for all of them since we know what he means to them. And the best way to see how the film moves you is how the film is cast. I’m not a big fan of Halle Berry (whom I still say is the scrawnier, softer version of Angela Bassett), but she hits many of the right notes here. We believe that she loved her husband as much as she shows and that the loss is killing her inside. And then you put Benicio Del Toro as the broken yet recovering Jerry, and he knocks the ball out of the park. He is deadly when he underplays a character, which is exactly what he does here. We see his emotion behind the skin, in the subtle ways and tiny mannerisms. But I also want to talk about the performance of John Carroll Lynch who plays the neighbor who used to be friendly with Steven and sees in Jerry a man who could use a friend as well. Lynch has never received the recognition he deserves in his film and television work. He doesn’t steal scenes, but makes the scene work better just by playing the character out the way it should be played. For Suzanne Bier’s first American film, she could have done worse. She plays to her strengths here, but she really needs to elevate her game if she wishes to become great. The film makes some very unusual artsy decisions, such as tons of close-ups on eyes of characters. I somewhat understand the reasoning, but it’s still very weak in context.All in all, this is a pleasant movie that does a good job at getting into your heart without being cute about it. It shows that the heart can heal even when that’s the one thing you probably don’t want. And that the one thing that you thought was the bane of your existence turns out to be your lifeline in the time of true disaster.
]]>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 03:43:00 GMTerico_77375erico_77375 Blog10/31/2007 11:43:00 PMIt is said that when a good man dies, that his song will resonate to all who loved him. That certainly is the case from Steven, who died trying to keep a man from killing his wife, only to killed along with the wife in a murder/suicide. And what stems from that is the focus of Things We Lost In The Fire, the first American film from Swedish filmmaker Suzanne Bier (After The Wedding, Brothers).Steven (David Duchovony) leaves behind a wife, Audrey (Halle Berry) and two kids. She is a hysterical mess with little to do than to go over the good times she had with her husband and try raising two children on her own. Just before the funeral, she realizes that one person doesn&rsquo;t know about Steven&rsquo;s death, his childhood friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro). Audrey doesn&rsquo;t like Jerry too much, even with Steven was alive. A former lawyer in another life, Jerry is now a heroin junkie living for the day. When everybody turned their back on him, Steven didn&rsquo;t. Audrey feels that the wrong man has died. Jerry feels the same way.After the funeral, Audrey goes through a suspended stage of mourning, snapping at her kids for the tiniest thing, going through longer stages of insomnia. Jerry decides to try to go clean again, goes to meetings where he finds a friend in a fellow traveler (Allison Lohman). In a moment of clarity, Audrey offers a place in a renovated room to Jerry. She needs help around the place, she says. It&rsquo;s easy to see that she needs another adult to be around while she copes with her loss. Jerry agrees begrudgingly. He tries to keep himself isolated, but the kids refuse to be ignored. They are intrigued by their father&rsquo;s best friend, which they&rsquo;ve only recently known existed at the funeral (no doubt Audrey&rsquo;s doing). He strikes a friendship with them that they mistaken to be a means of replacing their father. The problem is that Audrey starts to feel that he&rsquo;s starting to do just that as well. And it is when she pulls the rug out from under him that the story takes its final act to a sad yet satisfactory ending.Things We Lost In The Fire is a good movie that stems from what could be bad stuff. That&rsquo;s the trick with melodrama; finding characters that you are rooting for, hoping for, to care about and even love. Most melodrama is based on situation instead of character. When scenario dictates of how people respond, it&rsquo;s rare that you&rsquo;re going to find true human emotion. We feel sympathy for Jerry, Audrey, and the kids. We wonder if Steven would have been proud of them moving on as they are. When Jerry teeters closer to the edge of losing himself, we are truly afraid for him and for all of them since we know what he means to them. And the best way to see how the film moves you is how the film is cast. I&rsquo;m not a big fan of Halle Berry (whom I still say is the scrawnier, softer version of Angela Bassett), but she hits many of the right notes here. We believe that she loved her husband as much as she shows and that the loss is killing her inside. And then you put Benicio Del Toro as the broken yet recovering Jerry, and he knocks the ball out of the park. He is deadly when he underplays a character, which is exactly what he does here. We see his emotion behind the skin, in the subtle ways and tiny mannerisms. But I also want to talk about the performance of John Carroll Lynch who plays the neighbor who used to be friendly with Steven and sees in Jerry a man who could use a friend as well. Lynch has never received the recognition he deserves in his film and television work. He doesn&rsquo;t steal scenes, but makes the scene work better just by playing the character out the way it should be played. For Suzanne Bier&rsquo;s first American film, she could have done worse. She plays to her strengths here, but she really needs to elevate her game if she wishes to become great. The film makes some very unusual artsy decisions, such as tons of close-ups on eyes of characters. I somewhat understand the reasoning, but it&rsquo;s still very weak in context.All in all, this is a pleasant movie that does a good job at getting into your heart without being cute about it. It shows that the heart can heal even when that&rsquo;s the one thing you probably don&rsquo;t want. And that the one thing that you thought was the bane of your existence turns out to be your lifeline in the time of true disaster. http://www.spout.com/blogs/laraemeadows/archive/2007/10/19/21000.aspx Post By: laraemeadows
Post To: laraemeadows Blog
Post Date: 10/19/2007 9:01:38 PM
Body: Things We Lost in the Fire shows us that life is not fair, bad things happen to good people, good people aren’t always good and bad people aren’t always as bad as we think. Even though most of the performances are good, Things We Lost in the Fire felt unnatural and at times, even trite. Alone, without her now deceased husband Steven (David Duchovny), Audry (Halle Berry) has to begin to rebuild her, and her children’s lives. She remembers at the last minute, Steven’s drug addicted friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro) had yet to be invited to the funeral. After the funeral and after some soul searching, Audry decides to invite Jerry to live in her garage. I was impressed by how delicately the writer, Allan Loeb, depicted marital intimacies outside of sex. It honed in on something special my husband and I shared. It made Steven and Audry more realistic and human than any steamy sex scene action would. Too bad Loeb couldn’t save the rest of the movie from feeling contrived. As best I can explain Things We Lost in the Fire is like a puzzle. The pieces all fit together correctly but there is no clear picture when it is assembled. Berry, Del Toro, the children, Alexis Llewllyn, who plays daughter Harper, Micah Berry who plays son Dory, all give good performances but they feel like they are acting independent of each other, trying to remember their lines, like actors in a junior high school play. There is no interrelationship chemistry, no perceivable emotional investment, no soul deep emoting. It was a topical, well rehearsed characterization of the people they are supposed to be in the film. If “Most Cuteness in a Supporting Role” were a legitimate voting category in the Academy Awards, and if I were a voting member, Micah Berry and Alexis Llewllyn would be top contenders for the awards. Who can resists people under 15 with wild and humongous afros and ridiculously adorable eyes that well like puppies begging for some steak. I know I can’t. I suspect it will be as difficult for the average audience member, with a soul, to resist their adorability in The Things We Lost in the Fire. The Things We Lost in the Fire isn’t a waste of film, screaming for a massive warehouse inferno, but it is not going to make audience awash in cinematic sparks.
]]>Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:01:38 GMTlaraemeadowslaraemeadows Blog10/19/2007 9:01:38 PMThings We Lost in the Fire shows us that life is not fair, bad things happen to good people, good people aren&rsquo;t always good and bad people aren&rsquo;t always as bad as we think. Even though most of the performances are good, Things We Lost in the Fire felt unnatural and at times, even trite. Alone, without her now deceased husband Steven (David Duchovny), Audry (Halle Berry) has to begin to rebuild her, and her children&rsquo;s lives. She remembers at the last minute, Steven&rsquo;s drug addicted friend Jerry (Benicio Del Toro) had yet to be invited to the funeral. After the funeral and after some soul searching, Audry decides to invite Jerry to live in her garage. I was impressed by how delicately the writer, Allan Loeb, depicted marital intimacies outside of sex. It honed in on something special my husband and I shared. It made Steven and Audry more realistic and human than any steamy sex scene action would. Too bad Loeb couldn&rsquo;t save the rest of the movie from feeling contrived. As best I can explain Things We Lost in the Fire is like a puzzle. The pieces all fit together correctly but there is no clear picture when it is assembled. Berry, Del Toro, the children, Alexis Llewllyn, who plays daughter Harper, Micah Berry who plays son Dory, all give good performances but they feel like they are acting independent of each other, trying to remember their lines, like actors in a junior high school play. There is no interrelationship chemistry, no perceivable emotional investment, no soul deep emoting. It was a topical, well rehearsed characterization of the people they are supposed to be in the film. If &ldquo;Most Cuteness in a Supporting Role&rdquo; were a legitimate voting category in the Academy Awards, and if I were a voting member, Micah Berry and Alexis Llewllyn would be top contenders for the awards. Who can resists people under 15 with wild and humongous afros and ridiculously adorable eyes that well like puppies begging for some steak. I know I can&rsquo;t. I suspect it will be as difficult for the average audience member, with a soul, to resist their adorability in The Things We Lost in the Fire. The Things We Lost in the Fire isn&rsquo;t a waste of film, screaming for a massive warehouse inferno, but it is not going to make audience awash in cinematic sparks. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/addiction/MemberTagFilms.aspxaddiction
Number of films tagged: 553

Number of people who tagged: 59

Number of times used: 117

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:57:35 GMT55359117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/heroin/MemberTagFilms.aspxheroin
Number of films tagged: 138

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 67

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:12:04 GMT1383667Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/grief/MemberTagFilms.aspxgrief
Number of films tagged: 539

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 32

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT5392032Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/widowwidower/MemberTagFilms.aspxwidowwidower
Number of films tagged: 1294

Number of people who tagged: 5

Number of times used: 5

]]>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:02:59 GMT129455Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/familytragedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamilytragedy
Number of films tagged: 130

Number of people who tagged: 2

Number of times used: 2

]]>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 14:01:21 GMT13022Tag