Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

JimBell Blog

  • Get Smart

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

    Get Smart  (2008)

    Get Smart (2008) is not a life-changing experience, but it is probably the funniest movie you’ll see this year. Instead of foolishly imitating the original 1960s Get Smart television series, this Get Smart keeps the wry flavour of the series and modernizes it. Instead of being a bumbling idiot who accidentally succeeds, this Maxwell Smart (Steve Carroll) actually has some abilities as an Agent but he is inexperienced and makes mistakes. Similarly, his sidekick, the alluring Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), now steps forward to become the agent with the experience and the vulnerability. Also, the action becomes more prominent, with serious fight scenes worthy of Jason Bourne in the lobby of that bank in The Bourne Identity, and chase-and-crash scenes far more professional that the cruiser pile up in The Blues Brothers. Unlike the original series, these action scenes are done seriously—usually with a punch line at the end. As director Peter Segal explained, instead of a fight scene having the rhythm “smack, smack, pow,” it has the same rhythm but “smack, smack, joke.”

     

    The advantage of playing some scenes seriously is that the actors get to relate to each other, and play off each other, as well-rounded characters instead of as two-dimensional comedic types. Here’s just one small example. When Smart and Agent 99 blow up the bakery/nuclear factory, the bad guy’s giant henchman corners them on a roof with electrical shorts sparking and debris flying everywhere. Physically defeated and facing death, Smart tries psychology by trying to establish a human contact with the giant. Smart’s massive knowledge from the dossier he compiled seems of no use in proving that “I know you” until he says he knows the giant’s marriage is in trouble and his wife’s sister is driving a wedge between them. The giant approaches as if to crush him, gives him a hug, and sobs, “Her sister’s such a bitch.” This scene is not just a set piece but resonates throughout the movie. So at the end, when the evil mastermind has eluded Smart and Agent 99 and insults the giant’s wife, we’re prepared for how the villain meets his end.

     

    The humour is not mono-dimensional. Early on, there is a classic slapstick scene of Smart trying to use his turbo-charged Swiss army knife—specifically the cross bow component—to shoot off his plastic handcuffs in an airplane toilet. Later, there are snide asides about the current bungling President. Then there’s gags difficult to classify—for example, wishing to go “below the radar” in Russia, Smart and Agent 99 ditch their little scooter and look for alternate transportation in a Russian village. Lada? Tractor? Then Smart looks in an old garage and Agent 99 says, No! And we see them roaring down the two-lane highway in a Ferrari. Smart justifies: In the new Russia everyone has one of these. A peasant working in the field says, “A Ferrari!” and snaps a picture with her cell phone.

     


  • Tsotsi

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

    Tsotsi  (2006)

    Tsotsi (2005)Tsotsi (2006) is a good film, good enough, apparently, to win an Oscar for best foreign film. The acting is solid, the cinematography is solid, the sound track is effective and not overbearing, and a lot of scenes are refreshingly not predictable. The only major criticism people have had of this tale of a South African ghetto thug who accidentally steals a baby and turns his life around is that it is fakey, that the leader of a gang which has “progressed” to killing people would never go soft taking care of a baby. I wouldn’t know. Come to think of it, what would you have to know in order to declare this character change phoney? Well, you’d have to know a lot of young thugs, and know them over a long enough time to see what, if anything, changes their criminal behaviour. More specifically, you should know South African teenaged thugs and the culture they live in. I’m surprised that there are several professional movie critics in America who know all that.

     

    Although the film is well-done and worth watching, I think it could have been even better if it had revealed the various reasons why Tsotsi was so affected by the infant. Instead, the movie implicitly asks us to accept that Tsotsi is captivated with the kid and then see where it leads.

     


  • Atonement

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Atonement  (2007)

    Atonement (2007)Atonement (2007) is a strangely remote and unaffecting movie in spite of all the excellent acting.

     

    But, you may object, the film was hugely popular, with something like an 83% Fresh Tomato rating. Averages can be misleading. For example, if half the population is morbidly obese at 300 pounds and the other half of the population is starving to death at 100 pounds, it is not accurate to say that the citizens are hefty, healthy 200 pounders. Similarly, almost all reviews, no matter how favourable, have qualms about Atonement. The reviews have difficulty identifying why the film doesn’t quite work, so they resort to summaries such as “so boring,” or “so fussy . . . for women, and for a certain kind of woman,” or a good film “in spite of all the quibbles.”

     

    Atonement is remote because it is not primarily about the passionate romance between Cecelia and Robbie but about Briony, the girl and woman who has to atone for perjury and destroying their lives. But we don’t like Briony. As a child she is a bit nasty, manipulative, jealous . . . she has a cold, pale stare. As an 18-year-old nurse who wants to atone for her wrongs, Briony is realistically remote—as one of her nursing colleagues says, “mysterious.” She does seek out her Cecelia to apologize in a realistically constrained fashion, but she does not win our hearts for too little too late. So, when we see Briony as an old woman promoting her last novel, Atonement, we do not particularly care for her. So, when she reveals that, surprise, she did not actually apologize to Cecelia and Robbie for they were both killed in the War, we do not feel horrified empathy at the life-long burden of guilt this poor woman carried. Any concern we have for her suffering is remote and intellectual. With this serious shortcoming, it does not matter how stunning Keira Knightly (Cecelia) looks in her green gown, it does not matter how cleverly the sound track blends music and sound effects, and it does not matter that the unbroken tracking shot on the Dunkirk beach is 4 minutes long. Without pity for Briony’s burden and without regret at the inadequacy of her attempted atonement through literature, the movie remains remote.


  • Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]


  • Into the Wild

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

    Into the Wild  (2007)

    Unfortunately, Into the Wild (2007) does a lot to distance you from the main character who is supposed to hold your attention for 2 and a half hours. Fortunately, however, if you can hang in there, the ending will probably move you.

     

    How does the film distance us from the Chris McCandless, the young college grad who rejects his parents, society, and most people and spends two years travelling to Alaska in search of peace alone with nature? Let us count the ways. First, the camera almost never shows Chris in a face-on close up until the final scene. Chris dodges and glances off us as he does everyone in the movie.

     

    Second, the movie is told in flashbacks. We know he makes it to Alaska, so this leaves each substantial flashback to justify itself. The flashbacks cannot do anything for the plot, but they do slowly develop Chris’s character.

     

    Third, while some of the flashbacks develop character, they don’t tell much of a story in themselves. For example, Chris is earning good money as a hired hand on a farm when his boss is inexplicably arrested by the FBI and, in the next shot, Chris is on the road again. What? Another example: instead of seeing Chris’s exciting journey into Mexico, we hear a summary when a US Immigration Officer asks, “So how’d you get into Mexico?”

     

    Fourth, the film is divided into self-conscious sections labelled as follows: Birth; Adolescence; Adulthood; Family; and Getting of Wisdom.

     

    Fifth, this self-consciousness continues with printing superimposed on the pictures as Chris writes postcards or notes.

     

    Sixth, for no apparent reasons, the screen often splits into two or three.

     

    Seven, the cinematography jumps back and forth from a grainy, jerky docu-drama look to a standard movie look.

     

    Eight, most of our insight into Chris comes not from what he says and does but from the dreaded voice over narration, here provided by his sister.

     

    Although Into the Wild did a lot to distance me from the main character, I found the ending powerfully sad. The movie portrays Chris’s dad as a bastard and his mother as enabling a dysfunctional family. I believe it. But more importantly I believe that how a kid turns out is an interaction between the kid and the parents. So if Chris had been of a different nature, he might have said, Dad, you’re a bastard, thank you for putting me through college and Harvard law school, and I’ll see you once a year at Christmas. But as luck would have it, Chris took it extremely hard: Dad, you’re a bastard, I throw away everything you gave me, I put no faith in anyone, and I disappear. I identify with a young college grad hitting the road to find himself—Chris is simply more extreme than most. I also identify with what happened to him. Finding yourself in your mid-twenties is fraught with danger—sink or swim, do or die, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, etc. As luck would have it, Chris ate a poisonous wild plant and died. While many people emerge from their soul searching adventures battered and humbled, Chris was again extreme.

     

    The last segment of the film wisely abandons the filming techniques that distanced me from Chris. Although the segment is entitled Getting of Wisdom, I found the film all the more powerful for not telling me straight out what Chris was supposed to have learned. Take the last three statements in the movie as Chris lies dieing in a shelter in the Alaskan wilderness. Third last: He says, from reading Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, that we should call each thing by its right name. He made a mistake mislabelling the plant he ate. He made a mistake calling himself Alexander Supertramp, so he leaves a last note signed with his real name. But this is a bit unfair to the young sojourner. Eating a poisonous plant was a mistake, whereas travelling under an assumed name was, for Chris, a necessary step to becoming more mature. Second last line: Chris writes that happiness is only real when shared. But Chris is writing this under duress—he is dieing alone. Although it sounds as if he has changed his tune, maybe he hasn’t. Final line: Chris imagines himself returning home, his parents running down the sidewalk, everyone hugging, and he wonders: If I came home smiling, would you see what I’m seeing now? And what he is seeing now, with a smile on his face, is the beauty of nature as he dies. I loved the complexity of the ending and wish the preceding two hours had had similar power.

     

     


  • Starting Out in the Evening

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

    Starting Out in the Evening (2007) is excellent (certainly deserving of its 86% Fresh Tomatoes). It is the story of two odd couples—an old novelist and the engaging graduate student who is studying his work, and the novelist’s 40-year-old daughter and her love for the “wrong” man. It’s about the complexities of love. What makes this tried and true theme fresh is that in any given scene, you never know how things will turn out. Even though the swelling music suggests romance, it could be the start of a break up. When you think the author and grad student may have a May/December romance, it is not like that, and when you suspect she is manipulating him, she isn’t, she truly wants to figure out what makes her favourite writer tick, and she wants to advance her career in a cut-throat business—and who can blame her for that? While most of the acting kudos and nominations have gone to Frank Langella for his muted but powerful performance of the aging novelist, the other three actors have to be good enough to not look bad in comparison. Lauren Ambrose is brilliant as the adoring and prying grad student. Lili Taylor is so strong as the daughter that she can support the second story line.

                Because the secondary theme of this movie concerns literature and the writing process, it helps if you are interested in, or familiar with, that.

                This is the kind of serious mature movie I wish was more common.


 


Advertisement