Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

Reel Thoughts

Oscar Flashback: Y Tu Mama Tambien (2002)

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

Under discussion:

Film Name Production Year

Y Tu Mamá También (2002)

What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:

Next on my Netflix queue was Y Tu Mama Tambien, which was nominated for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar (film year, 2002; awarding year, 2003). The other nominees in this category were:

Talk to Her (Winner)

Far From Heaven
Gangs of New York
My Big Fat Greek Wedding

This film represents the second of two Oscar-nominated Spanish-language foreign language films topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track.

Y Tu Mama Tambien crossed my radar not so much because of the Oscars but because it is one of those films that has garnered so much attention, whether it was because Alfonso Cuaron was the director, because the film is somewhat controversial in its subject matter, or because the film has actually been compared to American Pie (I think unfairly). I liked Cuaron's stylized and visual approach to Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (even if I despised the adaptation), so I was also interested in experiencing this director in a more "real" film setting. Also, I am finding that I tend to enjoy Spanish-language foreign films, even though I never took the language. Thus, when Netflix recommended the film during my initial stream of consciousness queuing, I added it with interest in seeing what all of the talk was myself.

Y Tu Mama Tambien (And Your Mother Too) tells the story of two horny teenaged boys, Julio (Gael Garcia Bernal) and Tenoch (Diego Luna), who are ready to waste a summer away on drugs, alcohol, and casual sex while their girlfriends are off spending the summer in Europe. Their plans go only slightly awry when they meet an older woman, Luisa (Maribel Verdu), the wife of Tenoch's academic but oafish cousin. The boys tempt her with a road trip to an imaginary beach cove called "Heaven's Mouth," which the boys claim is on the Oaxacan coast, and while Luisa initially refuses them, after learning that her husband has cheated on her yet again, she elects to take the boys up on their offer. What ensues is a road trip fraught with jealousy and facing hard truths: Luisa sleeps with both boys, though she suggests that the real lust they have is for each other. The boys' jealousy of each other, in turn, erupts over Luisa and various past indiscretions and develops into heated and violent arguments that threaten to destroy their friendship and to alienate the young woman who would teach them something about real life.

The first word that came to mind while watching Y Tu Mama Tambien was "intense." There is a level of intensity being explored here that is both engaging and hard to watch: the intensity of young testosterone, the intensity of realizing mortality, the intensity of love. This film's hallmark is the potency of this intensity, brought to a forefront by director Cuaron and made even more real by the performances of the three leads. Though young actors, there was a naturality about Bernal, Luna, and Verdu that drew the viewer, particularly me, in and suspended disbelief quite readily. Their story was real and interesting, and Cuaron amplified this intensity with a varied use of the camera, anywhere from a handheld, docu-style method of shooting to a standard point-and-shoot method focused on each lead's intimate expressions.

What I didn't particularly enjoy about this film was the fact that there was a narrator, who cuts into the action at odd points to not only provide a third-person omniescient investigation of each of the three primary characters' internal motivations but also to set their story against the backdrop of then-current political turmoil in Mexico. This narration, even though it added some logic to the progression of the storytelling, which I always welcome, proved to be more distracting than not because first, the sound dropped away dramatically, and there would be a pregnant, few seconds' pause before the melodic voice of the narrator offered his thoughts and observations. Second, the political backdrop was inconsequential and really had nothing to do with the story other than to place it in a period context. These three characters were not concerned with the outer workings of the world, and while that may have been the point, to contrast their naivete and selfishness with the larger shift in political landscapes, a few, minimal comments on the world at large would have sufficed to create that context. After all, if the three main characters did not seem to care about their environment, why should the viewer? It felt trite and pedantic to include such commentary, unless Cuaron aimed to have the picture be a social commentary piece. I think the picture was really an intimate, micro-level coming-of-age story, the intimacy of which might also have been emphasized by the larger world scope.

Also, there are some graphic sex scenes in this film, and while normally, I don't mind such scenes (after all, we're all only human), the sheer number of them felt a bit too much. On the one hand, the number belied the ultimate lesson that the boys seem to learn, which is not to treat sex merely as a tool or a quick ride on a willing pony but to treat it as an experience. On the other hand, the learning of this lesson and the boys' ultimate path to coming to grips with it felt ultimately unsatisfying, in that their reunion scene during the denoument of the film was given a short-shrift in narration.

Indeed, the most compelling story belonged to the character of Luisa, which I can't explain in more detail without spoiling the film entirely. It was her story, and her ending, that gave the film a sense of meaning to me; the boys, therefore, were mere accessories, even if the lessons being learned were theirs to absorb. It was Verdu's performance and Cuaron's deft handling of that performance that rendered the film as engaging as it was, and for that reason, I am inclined to rate the film a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. As to the test, it does not pass, merely because I cannot see myself engaging in repeat viewings of this film. It was powerful to be sure and more powerful and engaging than Far From Heaven, Gangs of New York, and My Big Fat Greek Wedding (though I have not seen Talk to Her). Still, I think it's worth the watch, and if there are any other Cuaron films to explore, I'm ready to watch them. i think he is a talented director, and I think he handled the material in this film with a true sense of observation, skill, and connection to his characters.

Posted Sunday, July 26, 2009 8:31 PM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Revisiting Fantasia for the AFI Project

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

Under discussion:

Fantasia (1940)

What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

Fantasia is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#58)
10 Top 10's (#5 Animated)

I borrowed Fantasia on VHS from my parents because I could not bring myself to rent it when I have seen it a great number of times. Fantasia was a childhood favorite of mine; I always found it soothing to watch when I was sick or wanted to relax because of the motif of impressionistic animation set to classical music. I also enjoyed it because I had and still have a great love for such music; I played the violin through college and always possessed a healthy appreciation for pieces I was able to play or had the possibility of playing. In short, Fantasia always had high appeal with me, so I may be a bit biased in this review; however, I do think my bias is justified, as I think the film receiving AFI ranking is equally justified.

Walt Disney was a mastermind and ahead of his time, in my opinion. He had already released a great many shorts and, of course, by the time Fantasia was released, he had already created a handful of feature films, including the much-touted Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, which has already been reviewed for this project. If you read my review, you may remember that I appreciated Snow White as a formula creator but otherwise found it a film that has not managed to hold up very well and is not quite as entertaining to me as the films that followed it.

Fantasia, on the other hand, is quite the opposite in my opinion. Again, Disney pioneered a concept with this film, which contains no plot. Instead, music critic Deems Taylor introduces segments of classical music played orchestrally under the direction of Leopold Stokowski. Each piece is accompanied by an animated story which may have very little to do with the original intent of the piece, but even in that event, Mr. Taylor clearly states the composer's actual intention as a preface to the animated reconceptualization. The pieces include Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor set to impressionistic lighting and color; Tchaikovsky's Nutcracker Suite, depicting a change of seasons through the work of faeries and natural creatures; the Sorcerer's Apprentice, featuring my most favorite incarnation of Mickey Mouse; Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, depicting the early stages of evolution through the dinosaurs; Beethoven's Pastorale Symphony (No. 6), which is set to a story rooted in Greek mythology; Ponchielli's Dance of the Hours, featuring a ballet performed by ostriches, hippos, alligators, and elephants; and a combination finale of Mussorgsky's Night on Bald Mountain and Schubert's Ave Maria, depicting demonic forces held at bay by the light of morning and the faithful.

The concept introduced here was original and has not been imitated or duplicated, except when Disney released Fantasia 2000, with new pieces and new animated segments. Disney pioneered new sound techniques to enhance the viewing experience with this film. The colors are vivid, and the sequences are interesting. The only sequence that seems to drag to me is the first one, set against the Toccata - only because the formless animation has less of a logical progression than the pieces that follow. In any event, however, this film, I think, can truly be deemed art. It combined the creativity of Disney's imaginative storytelling with the work of his team of animators (so much smaller in 1940) to enhance the enjoyment of timeless classical pieces, and because the animated renderings are not rooted in period and include no vocal tracks, the visual presentation as well as the spirit of the piece transcend the year in which the film was made. In short, Fantasia is a remarkable entry in the annals of film history, especially in the annals of two dimensional animation. Plus, it can be enjoyed by viewers of all ages.

Because of its originality and truly timeless quality, I almost feel like Fantasia should be rated higher than Snow White on any list in which the two films appear; then again, Fantasia may not have been the marvel that it is without the initial entry of its sing-songy predecessor to break the mold. What is disheartening is that it did not even get a ranking on the AFI's Revised anniversay list ((it was replaced by The Gold Rush, which jumped several spots from its original ranking). In any event, I think Fantasia is a masterpiece of filmmaking, animated or no, and I am inclined to rate the film a perfect 10 because it is such a masterpiece! Also, it passes the test; the trouble is, it's been locked away in Disney's vault for years, though I read somewhere that a re-release (including to Blu-Ray) is due either next year or the following one. I can't wait! If you haven't seen Fantasia, I highly recommend getting a hold of a copy, sitting back with a cup of tea, and experiencing the undeniable artistic excellence of the film for yourself.

Posted Saturday, July 25, 2009 8:35 AM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Oscar Flashback: Volver (2006)

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

Under discussion:

Volver (2006)

What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:

Next on my Netflix queue was Volver, for which Penelope Cruz was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar (film year, 2006; awarding year, 2007). The other nominees for Best Actress in this category were:

The Queen - Helen Mirren (Winner)

Notes on a Scandal - Judi Dench

The Devil Wears Prada - Meryl Streep

Little Children - Kate Winslet

The two films currently topping my Netflix queue turn out to be Oscar-nominated Spanish-language foreign language films. Volver ("Returning") was the first.

Volver represents my first foray into the films of Pedro Almodovar. I understand he is quite the esteemed director, so I was excited to give this film a look. Plus, the premise sounded like something potentially up my alley, and, of course, I had heard of the film thanks to its Oscar exposure (which is, by the way, part of the purpose of highlighting the film as an "Oscar Flashback"). While Volver was not a perfect film, it was certainly a sweet picture with much heart and an engaging performance by Ms. Cruz, and I'm definitely interested in exploring some of Almodovar's other films.

In Volver, the story centers around three generations of women in a family struggling to maintain familial bonds following the death of the matriarch, Irene. Raimunda (Cruz) and her daughter Paula live in Madrid with her layabout husband Paco, while Raimunda works as a janitor. After Paco is fired, he takes his frustration out on Paula in a shocking way, and Paula is forced to take extreme measures to retaliate. While Raimunda works to protect her daughter from the possible legal and emotional consequences of the situation, she relies on her sister Soledad, who also lives in Madrid and works as a hairstylist. Both women are responsible for caring for their aging and ailing Aunt Paula, who lives in their mother's former home in their birthplace of La Mancha and is also cared for her by her neighbor, Agustina. Before their aunt passes away, Raimunda and Soledad learn from her that she has been seeing visions of their mother Irene in ghostly form, who has also been caring for her and living with her. Writing this tale off as an unfortunate result of her illness. they are surprised to learn, after their aunt passes away, that other residents of their former village have also seen Irene; subsequently, she begins to appear to members of their family, beginning with Sole. Sole is forced to decide how to respond to her mother's curious presence and to decide whether or not to share this information with Raimunda, as Raimunda struggles to cope with her daughter's painful experience, her own shocking history, and surviving in the present.

As I've mentioned, Volver is a sweet picture, zeroed in on observations of the human condition in unusual circumstances. The relationships between the women that are being explored are written, directed, and performed with such infectious warmth, it's hard not to immediately enjoy the picture on a purely aesthetic basis. Ms. Cruz does, indeed, give a winning performance, even if she did not win the award (though I haven't seen The Queen yet); when she was on screen, it was hard not make or accept her as the immediate focal point. Raimunda's story is all at once so poignant, so tragic, and yet such a tale of survival, and Ms. Cruz tackled the wide-ranging emotions of this character with gusto. She was a joy to watch.

I was not as familiar with the rest of the cast, as I haven't seen too many films that are exports from Spain, but I felt this was a very good ensemble of women telling a beautiful tale about having strength as women trying to live their lives and to move forward. I particularly liked the actress who played Sole; she proved to be a charming and understated counterpoint to the more passionate portrayal offered by Cruz.

The cinematography in this film was masterful and proved to be something of another character all on its own. Apparently, Almodovar is quite the master at exploring the limits of the camera in intimate settings; the claim was certainly true here. From different color palates to skillful angles and choice close-ups, this director was able to elevate the intimacy levels with his obviously practiced knowledge of the camera in a charming and heartstring-tugging way.

While I was certainly entertained by Volver and its unique story, however, I did not love the film for two reasons. First, the story was very scattered, mostly in the sense that the film was attempting to focus on three primary women (Raimunda, Sole, and Paula) and their reaction to the presence of Irene, but there were side stories that also figured into the grand scheme. It all comes together in the end, and none of the storylines lacked for interest or went unresolved, but on initial viewing, I was left wondering why the viewer might need to know so much about, for example, Agustina's particular story or why Raimunda cared so much about cooking for a film crew working locally and looking for a place to relax and eat, stories which felt a little distracting and were not necessarily comic relief. Second, the ending seemed very abrupt to me. Again, no part of the story was left unresolved, but after taking such a slow and deliberate approach toward unfolding some big secrets at the end of the movie, the payoff of the storytelling, in fact, it was surprising that the film ended the way it did, without more of a denouement that might leave the viewer settled.

All in all, though, these are minor points, but they did knock the potential rating down a peg for me. Speaking of ratings, I think Volver deserves an 8 on the patented ratings scale for having minor flaws but being very good. In the land of the test, it does not pass, for the simple reason that I just don't see myself watching Volver again, even though I liked it very much. I think the film is highly recommendable as an introduction to Almodovar or if one enjoys Spanish films, though, and I wouldn't object to watching it again if offered; I just do not think I would if I bought it. In any event, I am glad the Oscars exposed me to such a film; I am looking forward to seeing other, allegedly better, examples of Almodovar's filmography in the future.

Posted Saturday, July 18, 2009 11:40 AM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

Viewing The Third Man for the AFI Project

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

Under discussion:

The Third Man (1949)

What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx

The Third Man is on the following AFI lists:

The Original Top 100 (#57)
100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Harry Lime is the #37 villain)
10 Top 10's (#5 Mystery)

I watched The Third Man instantly on Netflix. Prior to watching it for this go-round of completing the original AFI list, I knew very little about the film. I probably forgot that the film was on the list when I attempted to watch these films once before, and I never did sit down to watch it that time. The only bit I knew about it was that Orson Welles was in it; apart from that, I had no prior information and no expectations entering into the film.

Apparently, many people like it. It’s well reviewed here on Spout. In fact, after watching it and after reading some of the reviews, I find myself chalking this film up to the “Am I missing something?” category. I did not seem to have the same viewing experience or sense of appreciation for this film as others.

In this film noir, Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten) is a down-on-his-luck pulp western novelist who transplants to post-war (World, Second) Vienna, where his friend Harry Lime (Welles) has promised him a job. The trouble is, he arrives to find out that Mr. Lime is dead, apparently the victim of a traffic accident. While at the graveside funeral, Holly meets an inspector of sorts named Major Calloway (Trevor Howard), who informs Holly that Harry was a thief and murderer, guilty of trafficking black-market below-grade penicillin to people desperate for it, such as local hospitals, but which has actually caused more illness and death. In a fit of outraged loyalty, Holly refuses advice to return home and instead decides to investigate Harry’s accident, determined to absolve him of such unfounded accusations and becoming obsessed with eyewitness accounts of a mysterious “third man” at the scene. He is especially encouraged by meeting an actress named Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli), a former love interest of Harry and for whom Harry was able to provide forged papers that would allow her to stay in the presumably non-Communist part of Vienna, since she appears to hail from a quarter reserved for people from Czechoslovakia and restricted by Cold War fears. As Holly investigates, however, he gradually comes to realize that Major Calloway might be telling the truth, particularly when Harry’s unearthed grave reveals a different dead body and when Holly one day encounters Harry, alive and well, full of threats and offers. Complicating this escalating series of events is the apparent attachment Holly forms for Anna, even as Anna can’t seem to forget Harry, despite knowledge of his wrongdoings.

What makes The Third Man unique is that, even as a film noir, this movie is more atmospheric than most. Shot on location in Vienna, the film and its director, Carol Reed, made good use of the old-world European feel of Vienna to give the film an air of mystery, even if there is very little mystery to the story (more on that in a minute). Coupled with a unique musical score played entirely on a zither that evokes that same old-world charm, The Third Man turns out to be a quirkier entry in the annals of noir film, suppressing its darker undercurrent with a sort of levity in the art direction, scoring, and cinematography. Reed and his cinematographers made good use of light, natural and artificial, to heighten the sense of mystery, however artificial, that permeated the film, and they won an Oscar for their achievements.

The story was also somewhat interesting and complex. Apparently, the screenwriter, Graham Greene, devised the plotline through the development of a novella that he later converted into a screenplay. The emotions being explored here are quite convoluted, as these characters seem to struggle through an ingrained sense of cynicism and disappointment in the world and in each other while simultaneously deciding what is right (and, in many ways, there is no right answer in any given situation). Does Holly turn in Harry, even though he has done good deeds for people like himself and Anna? Does Anna forego her allegiance to Harry, even though she owes him so much? There is a real sense of internal tug-of-war with all of the characters, with the possible exception of Lime himself, which make this film interesting.

Still, I can say unequivocally that I was quite bored watching this film for the very first time. The pacing started off at a fairly good clip and then seemed to slow to a crawl as the film approached its climax, only to pick back up again during the final confrontation in the Vienna sewers. The only time I was really interested in and connected to the film was when Welles appeared. His presence was electrifying – for a mere fifteen minutes of screen time, he managed to convey true madness and villainy, earning his character a place on the AFI’s Heroes and Villains list. His motivations were clear, and his performance was finely nuanced, walking a delicate tightrope between caring friend and lover to cold-hearted profiteer with seemingly no morality. None of the other characters felt quite as well developed to me. Holly’s loyalty to Harry was never fully explained; friendship aside, the history of their relationship was given little background, usually through passing comments, so it seemed somewhat unnatural that he should take such an interest in delving into the circumstances of Harry’s death with such fervor; then again, his actions could be explained away by grief or surprise at what he learned. I never connected with the actress playing Anna; as a femme fatale, she left something to be desired, but, then again, she was not really designed to be a vixen. Still, she seemed so weak and naïve, even if her final actions could be interpreted as arising from a position of strength.

As a portrayal of the effects of grief and betrayal, this film presented some interesting quandaries for the Holly and Anna characters, but I struggled to understand why this film has been characterized a “mystery” and given such a high rank in the mystery category of the ten top 10’s. There was nothing mysterious about this picture! It was a noir, so it was told in narrative flashback, which is a typical element of noir. The viewer already can guess that Harry is still alive, so that’s not the mystery. Perhaps, if the question is why he faked his own death, there is some mystery in that, but Major Calloway explains early on some of Harry’s misdeeds. I think labeling this film a mystery also fooled me into thinking this film was something that it was not, and that may have colored my overall outlook on my viewing experience.

I do take issue, as a matter of consistency, with the fact that this film appears on any of the AFI lists. By all accounts, this film is a British export, and though there was an American version released for distribution in the United States, the film originated in the United Kingdom. I think that flies in the face of being an “American” film eligible for entry on the AFI lists. It curiously also did not make the revised list (Rocky replaced it after a sizeable jump in its ranking), even as the film has appeared on some of the other lists, so if it was such a classic meriting an exception to the apparent thrust of compiling these lists to begin with, the AFI has not regarded it consistently either. Even if American actors and film crew were involved in the production, and it had an American producer, by all accounts from my understanding of how the Institute compiles these lists, other films that are primarily British should also have been eligible for consideration if this one was. For example, Monty Python and the Holy Grail is written, co-directed, and partially performed by Terry Gilliam, and I feel that film should have at least cropped up on the AFI’s Funniest film list.

I digress. In the end, I just didn’t find that I enjoyed The Third Man much. It was still a well-made movie, for the most part, even if I didn’t connect to it in any tangible or palpable way, but I guess I just don’t understand why it’s considered such a classic. There is better noir out there, story-wise, production-wise…and while I would agree that the final shot contains a certain poetry, encapsulating the consequences of choices made, I just wasn’t impressed enough by the film overall. Again, that’s why this film gets the award of “am I missing something?” As to a rating on the patented ratings scale, I am leaning heavily on a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. Like I said, I feel the movie was well done, but it has some flaws in my eyes, at least in the pacing and some of the storytelling. I actually tried re-watching the last half of the film before I wrote this blog in an effort to connect to it more, but, alas, I still am left wondering what all the fuss was about. As such, it definitely does not pass the test. Until I can understand what makes the Third Man so esteemed, other than its excellent production elements, I don’t think I’d want to watch it again.

In postscript, according to the Spout counter, apparently this is my 1000^th movie seen (though, for the record, I haven’t gone through the database that thoroughly). Do I get a prize now? J

Posted Sunday, July 12, 2009 4:44 PM by pippin06 | with 2 comments

Oscar Flashback: Gods and Monsters (1998)

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

Under discussion:

Gods and Monsters (1998)

What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here:

Next on my Netflix queue was Gods and Monsters, for which Ian McKellen was nominated for the Best Actor Oscar; Lynn Redgrave was nominated for the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; and Bill Condon won for Best Adapted Screenplay (film year, 1998; awarding year, 1999). The other nominees for these three categories were:

Best Actor

Life is Beautiful - Roberto Benigni (Winner)

Saving Private Ryan - Tom Hanks

Affliction - Nick Nolte

American History X - Edward Norton

Best Supporting Actress

Shakespeare in Love - Judi Dench (Winner)

Primary Colors - Kathy Bates

Little Voice - Brenda Blethyn

Hilary and Jackie - Rachel Griffiths

Best Adapted Screenplay

Out of Sight

Primary Colors

A Simple Plan

The Thin Red Line

This movie also represents the fifth of five LGBT-themed Oscar movies at the top of my Netflix queue (thanks to my stream of consciousness queuing). Just in case you were keeping track.

I've been wanting to see Gods and Monsters for a long time, mainly because I like Ian McKellen so much. This film predates Gandalf but is semi-contemporaneous with Magneto, and I just enjoy his screen presence and line delivery. 1998 was also a great year for films, as you might be able to discern from the nominee list above, so it was just one of those films that I'd always chalked up to my hope-to-see list, should I get the chance. That's why the almighty Netflix is so great, but, really, I promise I don't work for them.

Gods and Monsters is a biopic about director James Whale (McKellen), who was most famous for directing Frankenstein and the Bride of Frankenstein, even though he directed other pictures like Showboat. The film begins when Whale is in his retirement years, having just been afflicted by stroke and being doted on by his longtime housekeeper (Redgrave). He lives in relative peace, though it is clear that he is not quite comfortable in his state of resignation, particularly when young men come seeking stories about the Frankenstein pictures. One of the facets focused upon in this film was Whale's unhidden homosexuality, as the opening scenes of the film feature the wily director taunting an eager interviewer by being willing to only offer morsels about his movies, so long as the devotee removes an article of clothing in exchange for each answer, at least until post-stroke epilepsy interrupts the game. As the movie progresses, Whale's gardener, Clayton Boone (Brendan Fraser), becomes the object of the director's affection, and while his sexual attraction is barely contained, Boone's alpha-male heterosexuality seems to make Whale more willing to talk about his past, including revelations about his father, his time in war, and the seeds of his moviemaking career, as Boone poses for Whale to draw him. When Boone later learns of Whale's homosexuality, though he is initially reviled by the information, he can't seem to stay away from the charismatic and interesting man, and a genuine friendship develops between them, even as Whale's health and mental stability deteriorate with each passing day.

Gods and Monsters was something of a mixed bag, both as an artistic work and as a piece of entertainment. My immediate reaction was that the story was a bit of a narrative mess: the film centered on the end of a man's life and his ability to cope through an awkward and cathartic friendship, but the focus was scattered. First, time and celluloid were spent on Boone's struggle to cope with befriending a gay man who he also seemed to acknowledge as a creative genius, but the story never flushes out why Boone in particular can't stay away, despite his discomfort, or why he should be drawn to Whale to begin with. It intimates that he is somewhat aimless and confused, traumatized by his childhood relationship with his father, and seemingly unable to commit to current love interests, but the film fails to offer an explanation as to why Boone finds solace in his friendship with Whale. By the same token, the film also dallied with curious cut scenes representing visions of madness that Whale was supposed to be having as his mental condition deteriorated, which were sometimes funny and, at least, interesting but made the picture maddeningly distracting, rendering the pacing quite choppy as they broke the natural flow of the story. While madness may disrupt the natural flow of a person's ability to understand his world and surroundings, and while it was important to put Whale's health in context with the apparent point of the story, some thought has to be given to the potential audience of the film, especially since the film's thrust was not so much to focus on Whale's declining mental state but on his progression toward the end of his life given his choices and actions of the beginning and middle of it.

I am curious as to why Condon won the Oscar for this picture, but I haven't seen the other nominees in the Adapted Screenplay category. There were some clever and poetic lines delivered by McKellen and co-stars, but the story itself was so disjointed, I actually had a hard time staying focused and/or concentrating on the picture. I was wide awake but started thinking about things I had to do rather than remaining committed what I was watching.

Gods and Monsters still had some good points about it, however. Ian McKellen is always a joy to watch because he has such a wonderful grasp of language and a melodious British accent to accentuate his delivery. Also, he has the ability to communicate so much with simple facial expressions, and, if nothing else, this film portrays how Whale was a complex man, full of convictions and regrets that McKellen was able to emanate with simple looks or a subtle crooked smile. Redgrave was also amusing as his overly concerned Hungarian housekeeper, fussing over her charge as if he were her husband, while simultaneously worrying over his afterlife due to his lifestyle in the current one.

Of the two categories for which these performers were nominated, I've seen Saving Private Ryan and Life is Beautiful in the Best Actor category and Shakespeare in Love in the Best Supporting Actress category. So far, I feel Tom Hanks was most deserving of the best actor award (but he'd already won twice by this nomination and so was very unlikely to win), since Benigni acted much like he does in real life in the charming Life is Beautiful, though McKellen had a difficult part and did an amazing job. I feel that anyone would probably have deserved the Supporting Actress award over Dench, who, as I recall, was given a pity prize after an earlier snub for 15 minutes of unimpressive screen time as Queen Elizabeth I in Shakespeare in Love. Redgrave was charming, but I haven't seen enough of this category to say that she was snubbed in the end.

On the other hand, I was less convinced by Fraser. The role was certainly new territory for him, as he'd traditionally played goofballs in films like Encino Man and George of the Jungle, but I had a hard time suspending disbelief for him because he's simply not that great of an actor. I've often felt that he gets cast for his looks, though he has some arguable comedic timing too. I think the former applied more to his inclusion in this film, as I failed to believe or trust any single emotion or dynamic that he offered as this character, which is disappointing, given the unusual and complicated relationship being portrayed.

The supporting cast aside from these main three was also largely uninteresting, and none of the technical elements kept me engaged, either. Ultimately, Gods and Monsters had some originality even as it had some creative if unbalanced storytelling and some good performances. While watching the film, though, my brain disengaged from concentration on the picture somewhere two-thirds of the way into the film, when Whale's visions and focus on Boone's inability to handle Whale's gay lifestyle collided into one big hodgepodge of unresolved mishmash. Even the ending was something of a conundrum - going from one likely eventuality to one unlikely one without explanation for this transition. Maybe I missed the overall point, but I don't think so. As a result, I'm inclined to rate Gods and Monsters a 6.5 on the patented ratings scale between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining because the film wasn't quite mediocre but was definitely a bit more than shaky in my opinion. I also think the test has not been passed here, since I'm obviously not as interested in the film having seen it as I was before I viewed it. Gods and Monsters may be recommendable if only because of McKellen, or if there is an interest in the life and times of director James Whale, but otherwise, it lacks a fully fleshed-out story, adapted though it was from a source novel (which now makes me wonder how the novel reads).

Posted Sunday, July 05, 2009 11:21 AM by pippin06 | with 0 comments

The Very Titled Away We Go Travels to Touching Destinations

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

Under discussion:

Away We Go (2009)

The second film I saw during my hot weekend in Chicago (hot thanks to summer, see) was the newly released new film directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Road to Perdition, Revolutionary Road). Mr. Kate Winslet is one of my favorite directors; I have enjoyed all of his movies that I've seen, though I have not yet seen Revolutionary Road. He has a talent for eliciting some powerful and intimate emotions from his actors and performers, regardless of the prevailing mood of the piece. Thus, it was fitting that this film, a small and intimate picture about starting a new family, should have him at the helm.

In Away We Go, Burt (John Krasinski - Jim!) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) are firmly unmarried but deeply committed to each other, and they are expecting their first child together. When they learn that Burt's eccentric parents (Catherine O'Hara and Jeff Daniels), who they were relying on to help with the baby, are moving overseas and renting out their house, they realize that the world is literally open to them in terms of where they can move and put down roots, and so, they decide to visit a few friends in various locations around the country. While this exercise is initially designed to explore possible places to raise a family while maintaining their decidedly bohemian lifestyle, the friends they find themselves visiting, all parents themselves, become lessons in parenting and how Burt and Verona do not want to raise their first child. What's more, even when they find examples of good parenting, they soon realize that life as parents will not be all smiles and laughter, even though such a life may be fulfilling in the end. Their travels also become a means by which they can analyze their own life paths and see how their life experiences may affect their parental attitudes in the future.

I think the All Movie Guide review at the bottom of the film's Spout page used the best words to encapsulate the point and thrust of this picture: each location to which Burt and Verona travel is not so much an exploration of physical landscapes but of emotional landscapes. Each diversely different location, including Phoenix, Montreal, and Miami, provides Burt and Verona a new lesson, and it's truly meaningful how the couple - who are quite different themselves even as they seem to fit together like hands in gloves - relate to each of the parenting models and to their own lives as they begin to change.

This picture works because Mendes brings a simplicity to the proceedings. He does not overcomplicate the already complex issues Burt and Verona are grappling with; he relies solely on dialogue, sounds, and images to paint an emotional portrait, and his artistry is brilliant. Away We Go sneaks up on you. You expect the film to be pleasant, at least, as you begin to spot the chemistry between the two lead characters, but you never expect it to be profound and extremely touching, particularly with two good comedic actors at the forefront and a bevy of interesting and equally excellent supporting performers, including Allison Janney, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Melanie Lynskey, and, of course, O'Hara and Daniels in the background. The end of the film leaves you feeling satisfied and hopeful but with the real and very relatable afterthought that Burt and Verona are bracing for impact. Mendes simply has a considerable talent at using symbols (in this case, friendships) to belie deeper meanings in an almost poetic way, and this film is no exception, even if it will never have the fanfare of his previous works. Also, each of his films contain some interesting quirk or idiosyncrasy, and Away We Go is no exception, using the main characters' free spirits as foundation for their emotional struggles.

The film would also not be so winning and engaging if it weren't for Krasinski and Rudolph. While there were occasions where I may have had trouble buying Rudolph's performance as sincere--after all, she's played many a crazy character on Saturday Night Live, and this was the first pseudo-dramatic role I've seen her play and only because the presence of her comedic trademarks were subtly felt--she was still a joy to watch, and Krasinki has a gift for playing natural, though this character was not a far cry from Jim Halpert on the Office. The bigger joy of this film was seeing the turns by the supporting actors - Janney as a particularly boorish and clueless mother with a gift for saying the most inappropriate thing in any given situation; Gyllenhaal as a new age mother prone to breast feeding her children well past infancy as well as her colleagues' children too; the always divine and rapturously funny O'Hara and Daniels as Burt's parents, and so on.

I didn't love this film, though, only because I couldn't relate to it completely. I have never experienced the joys of parenthood or the onset of pregnancy, so there was a disconnect for me, but I think that anyone who has been pregnant or is a parent will highly appreciate this picture. That's not a flaw as much as it is an honest opinion - the main characters were very close to my age, and I related to their free, bohemian spirits, but I feel so far away from having children that I struggled to maintain a connection to these characters.

That's not to say that the film isn't wonderfully and smartly written, directed, and performed and isn't recommendable. If nothing else, it is completely touching, and because of the way the emotions being portrayed subtly wrap their vines around the viewer, ensnaring him or her before realizing it, the film is anything but manipulative. In fact, the ending, though a bit abrupt, leaves room for interpretation and reflection, and Mendes never panders to the audience, even if Burt and Verona's decision in the end may have been the obvious choice all along. On the patented ratings scale, I'm inclined to rate Away We Go with an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good. There were some parts that dragged in pacing, and I was not as convinced by Rudolph's performance, but all in all, the movie was enjoyable. I'm not sure if it passes the test, though. While I enjoyed it, I haven't decided if I'm going to devote any part of my collection to Mendes, and this would be my least favorite film of his that I've seen (though, that isn't saying much, as I really like his other films, and none of his films could be what you call bad); on the other hand, if and when I have children or begin a life with a committed love partner, this film might have more meaning for me. I guess I'll hold off until one or more of these possible futures presents itself and then rewatch the film. In the meantime, the film is highly recommendable to anyone just interested in hearing a good story about new beginnings in life - as, after all, I'm sure we all think "away we go" when big changes are before us.

Posted Friday, July 03, 2009 10:00 AM by pippin06 | with 0 comments