Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

Bloggish review blog

  • Movies 101-Leading Men

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Dragonheart  (1996)

    American Psycho  (2000)

    A Beautiful Mind  (2001)

    Syriana  (2005)

    I'll admit that I'm a real sucker for interview shows. I've been a fan of "Inside the Actor's Studio" for years, so I was really looking forward to Professor Richard Brown's series of interviews with (mostly) well-respected actors, and for the most part, this disc delivered. I got "Leading Men," which contained interviews with George Clooney, Josh Lucas (huh?), Daniel Day-Lewis and Dennis Quaid.

    Clooney's interview provided a lot of interesting information about his background. I thought his description of his childhood and his idealistic journalist father really explained a lot about the kind of public figure the actor is today, and why he's taken on so many of the recent projects he has, like Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck.  While he still seemed pretty self-important, Clooney's view that his stardom has everything to do with luck and ability, and less to do with arrogance was a great point of view to hear. It seems as though Clooney is very grateful that he's gotten to where he is today, and realizes that without the occurence of certain events, he might still be doing dozens of failed television pilots.

    Josh Lucas' appearance was very hard for me to understand. I know he's been working for a number of years now, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't done anything that noteworthy. Whenever I've seen Lucas in a film, it's a supporting (or barely noticeable) role in a good movie like "American Psycho" or "A Beautiful Mind," or a bigger role in a terrible movie (see "Sweet Home Alabama"). I'm not sure what made Lucas think he was entitled to seem like a "serious actor" when talking with Brown, but all he succeeded in doing was making himself seem more puffed-up than he has any right to be. I thought this one was a definite miss in the series.

    Day-Lewis, on the other hand, was the interview I'd anticipated the most, and the one that I felt had the most in-depth disucssion of the actual craft of acting. Method actors have always fascinated me, and Day-Lewis is really the method actor's method actor. This is the guy who, on the set of "In the Name of the Father" spent the night being screwed around with in a jail cell and interrogated by British Special Branch officers for several hours just to better understand his character. That's some hard core devotion right there.

    Dennis Quaid's interview was by far the most enjoyable. It was clear the crowd got a big kick out of seeing him talk to Brown, and Quaid, in turn, seemed genuinely pleased at the audience's enthusiasm. His answers seemed very straightforward and honest, and he came off as a very nice, genuine sort of guy. I get the feeling that Quaid is the kind of guy all the other guys want to have a drink with. His body of work hasn't been consistently great (there'll always be "Dragonheart," after all), but Quaid was so charming and willing to talk that I ended up not caring.


  • "Ten Canoes" Surprisingly Entertaining

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Ten Canoes  (2007)

    I don't think I could have been more surprised by "Ten Canoes." I was actually rather disappointed when I recieved it in the mail, thinking "surely they could have sent me something more interesting than this." But then I made myself sit down and watch the thing...and I liked it! I was hooked right from the introduction, and narrator David Gulipilil's friendly, throaty laugh. I think I could probably listen to him tell stories all day, and not get bored. Gulipilil is really what makes this movie. His simple, amiable narration adds a lot of warmth and spirit to the story. Without him, this movie probably would have lived up to my earlier expectations of a dull anthropological drama.

    Director Rolf de Heer keeps the storytelling vibe going with unexpected humor and little narrative touches, like the closeups used to introduce each character. The Aboriginal people of Raminginin also seemed like they really enjoyed getting in on the action. Each character has interesting little quirks. They seem like exactly the sort of characters you'd find in any fable or fairy tale. The movie contains many of these archetypes that I found really interesting in their universal appeal. There's almost a magical quality about it.

    However, the way the story is told made it seem longer than it needed to be. DeHeer uses a story-within-a-story format that I didn't really think was necessary, and didn't seem to go anywhere. It would have been just as effective to dive right into the main action, rather than with a false start.

    All in all, "Ten Canoes" is really worth checking out, especially for those folks interested in cultural anthropology. It has a strange warmth and humor about it that draws the viewer in and makes them innately (and inexplicably) interested in the action and the characters. Probably the most fascinating thing about the movie is its ability to make its characters transcend cultural differences by introducing them as classic archetypal figures. If ever a movie were a study in unity and common threads, "Ten Canoes" is it.


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<March 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2425262728291
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345


Categories
 


Advertisement