Tenenbaums Blog

Bloody Good

Tenenbaums — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:45:52 GMT

Not only one of the best films I've seen recently, but one of the best I've ever seen. After a string of Spring '08 stinkers just viewed on DVD, Soderbergh's last effort in the '90s is right up there with Traffic as his best film.

I'd seen Terence Stamp in plenty of films over the past 15 years, but each time I wondered why he was considered such a big name. His turns in Bowfinger and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace felt tiny and phoned in. The Limey put aside any doubts that Stamp is a legend, beginning with his steely look and solidified by his gruff, blunt voice. It's a captivating performance and now one of my favorites.

Additionally, this is Soderbergh at his most inventive and free. There are no signs of studio interference throughout the work, leaving the director to experiment with cinematography, editing, and pacing to craft an overall brilliant piece. As Matthew Tobey says in the All Movie Guide, The Limey was perhaps Soderbergh's indie swan song before gaining a level of popularity that barred him from ever being this loose on screen. I've yet to see Bubble, which sounds like it was made under the studio radar (no big names, small budget, no lucrative release date, etc.), but Soderbergh has maintained an air of independence thoughout his works. The casts and budgets may have blown up, but the auteur's stamp remains and he's not afraid to try new things (all soundstages for The Good German; all DV for Full Frontal; tap into the remake with Solaris; etc).

Still, there's little Ocean's Thirteen shares with The Limey. For appreciative audiences, that's a true gift.

Surprise, Surprise

Tenenbaums — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 19:08:59 GMT

Wow. After a slow start, this movie really takes off. Though I love Snatch and Lock, Stock, it's reassuring to see that Guy Ritchie's talent can go in a different direction. That's not to say that he's completely abandoned his roots (which he might have done on the Swept Away remake....though I haven't seen it...) as there are trademark cinematography and editing touchs in addition to dialogue and content.

Revolver reaffirms that Jason Statham is an actor with Ritchie and merely an action star without. He is at his dramatic best here and looks great next to the comedic masterwork in Snatch.

Ritchie's new directions allow him to grow as a filmmaker and distance himself from the "he made the same movie twice" comments at the start of his career. I now trust him more as a writer/director and I'm really excited for Rocknrolla.

Not About The Sahara or Pharoahs. Sorry...

Tenenbaums — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:46:56 GMT

Outstanding cast and a fine story adapted from Clyde Edgerton's novel. The work translates well, but with an Oscar winner, Luke Skywalker, and JTT, shouldn't the production value be a little higher? These folks deserve to be shot on something higher than a Hallmark Channel budget. Guess that's why it was direct-to-video.

If you get the chance, track down the Feature Films For Families edition. Wesley's pottymouth is chastised by Mattie, but with the scrub-a-dub-dub magic of wholesome editing, he never actually says anything bad. There are also entertaining questions to discuss with your family printed on the back of the DVD case, and the topics are also read aloud with inspirational background music in the "Bonus Stuff" section accessible through the main menu. Joy!

Thriller!

Tenenbaums — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:09:50 GMT

I saw The Exorcist for the first time last night, and while I was ready to have the tuna salad scared out of me, I thought it was pretty low on the fright-o-meter.

There are definitely several "whoa" scenes where you can't believe that what's onscreen is actually happening, but that doesn't make it scary. It would definitely be terrifying to be in the same room with a possessed Regan and the paranormal activity that occurs is pretty mesmerizing, but that doesn't make it scary either.

What stood out to me was the intensity of the exorcism scene and how well Max von Sydow played his part throughout the sequence. It was some hardcore, ghostbustin' ass shit with a devilish twist, but I wasn't nearly as freaked out by it as I was with Rosemary's Baby, which I consider to be a much better film.

When I think of "scary," I refer back to a pair of films that still give me the chills each time I watch them: Psycho and Halloween, most definitely not their respective remakes.

There are still times when I get a little paranoid while taking a shower. I can't see and can barely hear what's going on outside of the curtain, so there exists an air of terror that something may be creeping up on me with a knife or other painful object. This sense is heightened when I'm alone in a house, and while I don't let the feeling overwhelm me, it's definitely something that pops up from time to time. I have Alfred Hitchcock to blame for that, and I'm rather thankful for it.

Michael Myers is a strong reason to be afraid of the dark. You think you see something, then you look back and it's gone. He could be behind you at any time, and you have no way of knowing he's there because he doesn't make noise when he moves. Plus, he can't be killed. What???? And that musical score, probably the most terrifying since Psycho. Whenever I hear it, I look around to make sure I'm safe. Gah! There it is, playing in my head!!! John Carpenter, you are a genius! Well, you were when you made this film.

These are scary moments. Not a girl with Satan inside her strapped to a bed. Maybe it could have been, but it wasn't. While I'll admit that I'm easily frightened, though I often crave these feelings in a controlled environment (movie theaters, roller coasters, etc.), I find it hard for a film to successfully move me to this emotion.

I have no interest in all the Final Destinations (how can there be more than one "final"? I thought that meant it was the end...) and Hostels, so I won't make an effort to be scared by bags full of poo. Instead, give me the real spine-tinglers like Psycho and Halloween. I'll take them every time.

New Directions

Tenenbaums — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 01:57:13 GMT

In the vein of Charlie Kauffman's narrative and convention flipping scripts comes a new form of experimental filmmaking. Writer/director Tonya S. Holly, boldly stretching limits with her first film, proposes a return to simplicity that would make Clint Eastwood jealous. In When I Find The Ocean, Holly achieves auteur status by encouraging her cast to pretend that they were each acting for the first time, a suggestion that results in unparalleled success.

Ben Stiller's chief inspiration for Tropic Thunder, Holly tested her cast's dedication to the story by consistently placing unannounced acting tests in their paths. Sending an early message by casting her complete novice daughter in the lead role, Holly sets a strong standard for uninhibited, raw acting. The star of several living room productions, Lily Matland Holly benefits from sharing names with her character but is cut no additional slack. Her lack of diva baggage is refreshing as is her unwillingness (or is it inability?) to rehearse the script. Plus, there is a keen awareness that failure to obey direction will result in a an early bedtime and no dessert.

For the role of an abusive stepfather, Tonya Holly hired Richard Tyson, a Chris Isaak impersonator on leave from his seasonal show in Branson, Mo. Keeping "Wicked Game" and "King Without A Castle" a hard glance away from getting stuck in their heads all day, Tyson serves as an omnipresent challenge to the cast's focus. Combined with the force that is Lily Holly, the more experienced actors face an hourly onslaught of distractions.

And the rain keeps coming. To make things more interesting, no one explains the significance of tombstones to Lily. Her understanding is that the grave marker is merely a symbol of her father...not that anything rests below it. In a related matter, Lily's wish to see the ocean and solve the mystery of her father's voice in her head forces the cast to regularly question their geographical knowledge. The Gulf of Mexico? The ocean? Close enough. The struggle for truth and 3rd grade self-confidence produces more emotion than can sometimes fit in a single frame.

Other intentional double-takes include a stuffed panther; Lily in shoe polish blackface; a KKK picnic by the shore; and a legion of hypnotized mental patients re-enacting the 1965 Selma march for voting rights.

In fighting to keep the performances unprofessional, a competition in humility is clearly evident among the cast. When Graham Greene and Bernie Casey let it be known that they've taken the occasional acting class, they stick out like a redneck's manicured thumb (also occasionally on display). Following the examples of Lily Holly and Tyson, veteran performers Lee Masters, Diane Ladd, and Amy Redford accomplish the theatrical amnesia requested by their director. But, to their credit, Greene and Casey have their moments, too.

And so, a new genre is born. When future filmmakers coax a lack of acting knowledge out of their casts, it will be only described as "Holly-esque." As for When I Find The Ocean, it will be forever known as the prototype of this new movement.

Public Service Announcement

Tenenbaums — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:43:14 GMT

I’m John Adams and I approve this message.

(voiceover)

You know him. You love him.

Errr....well...you’ve heard of him, right? He was the 2nd President...or was it the 3rd? And doesn’t he have a beer named after him?

(Cue President Adams)

Hi, I’m John Adams and I’m running for cultural icon.

When you think of United States founding fathers, who comes to mind? Washington? Jefferson? Franklin? These are all deserving figures, but why does the name Adams not resound near the top?

I’ll have you know that I was there with these revolutionary celebrities, contributing a brand of clarity that was often perceived as bristling Massachusetts stubbornness. Yet when decisions were made, it was my council that was consistently sought. Credit must be given to these great men, as it was our combined efforts that led to our nation’s independence, but they have been elevated to god-like status in public memory while I am relegated to a bystander.

In Tom Hooper’s miniseries, based on the clever biography by David McCullough, you’ll see my legacy presented in one of the most engaging historical reenactments ever captured on film. Paul Giamatti’s hard, New England face and demeanor accurately depict my nuances beyond the confines of mere mimicry. Alongside Laura Linney as my wife, Abigail, Mr. Giamatti will guide you through my fascinating life, granting a new perspective of hallowed characters and illuminating my own life, of which little is foremost in national memory.

Did you know that I defended (successfully, I might add) the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre? What about my time spent abroad during the Revolutionary War, during which I forfeited witnessing my children’s adolescence only to face continual opposition by our impossible European neighbors? Additionally, you will at long last be able to converse amongst your contemporaries over events from my presidency, citing my prevention of military engagement against France and being the initial resident of the White House. And you will be moved by my home life, a challenging familial quest for honor and love that rivals our country’s struggles for independence.

Upon the motion picture’s completion, I trust that you will embrace me no longer as “some old dead guy,” but as a cultural icon on par with the more immortalized founding fathers. May it provide insight in a chasm created by a lack of tall tales and omissions from major currency and Mt. Rushmore.

So I ask you once more: consider John Adams as a United States hero. The results of Mr. Hooper’s filmed dramatization are ample evidence to elicit your support, and I encourage you to consult the work if you have not already done so. I say, good day!

(voiceover)

Paid for by David McCullough and HBO Films.

Vermeer's Creepy Wig

Tenenbaums — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 16:48:30 GMT

Pretty like a painting, and the make-up and costume folks deserve a lot of credit for their work on Johansson's mousy Dutch look, but overall it lacks substance. There is also a distinct lack of a fulfilling conclusion, but after 90 minutes of looking at the same portrait, it's best to just end instead of prolong.

Try Again

Tenenbaums — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:54:09 GMT

Though it has his name attached, The Game does not feel like a David Fincher film. Perhaps it's the quality of cinematography from 1997, when DVDs were fresh and directors were experimenting with the digital world, or maybe it's a script that, though eventually quite smart, never quite capitalizes on a great idea. Whatever the cause, the work lacks the definitive Fincher touches that were so evident in the films that sandwich this one, Se7en and Fight Club. Instead of another skill-heavy thrill ride, The Game instead stands as a half-cooked "eh" in an otherwise brilliant career.

The Horror, The Horror

Tenenbaums — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:41:44 GMT

What an awful waste of talent. Though it starts out interesting, every element of this movie quickly falls apart into a wannabe-Shakespearean tragedy that isn't even good for cathartic moments. Even the masterful Philip Seymour Hoffman overacts to the point of annoyance, but it's not entirely his fault. His character's actions, like the rest in this tiresome mess, are not believablem, a sure sign of lazy writing. The characters are trapped somewhere between comic-book conventions and superdrama, in a no-man's-land of ridiculousness.

Save time and preserve your high opinion of Hoffman by skipping this dumb dumb movie.

Almost There

Tenenbaums — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:30:06 GMT

Mike Nichols and Aaron Sorkin's star-studded collaboration is a well written, directed, and acted movie that is ultimately denied "great" status by the first two components. The writing crackles for the first hour, especially in the hands of Philip Seymour Hoffman, and the direction is quality Nichols fare, but when the all-too-quick ending arrives, one is left wondering where the magic went.

What this film lacks is a believable struggle. While Charlie Wilson is a remarkable, charming character in a unique situation, he is able to secure funds and other necessities for his covert war without trouble. Among his many successes, he gets Jews and Muslims to collaborate, and though these two groups display mutual hatred in their shared scenes, the overall effect is as if the drama was only for show and to weakly reinforce Middle-Eastern stereotypes. Practically no one says "no" to the guy and the stready stream of affirmatives leaves one wondering when something, anything, will come crashing down. That moment never really happens.

Yes, Wilson was able to call in a number of "back-scratching" favors to have his way in Congress, but is it really that easy to subvert the U.S. authorities and alter world history without attracting attention? If so, the perks of being a politician far exceed the public's understanding, but the omission of difficulty experienced by Wilson, though apparently true, remains the film's primary weakness. If Wilson was really able to cakewalk through to a successful operation, then the ease of his work should be hyperbolized; the string of "yes"es should be so outrageous that it reaches fairy tale levels. And if it was not so simple, then the tension and resulting miracle of achievement should likewise be depicted.

The film gets so close to being as remarkable as Wilson himself, but suddenly the story is over and feels noticeably unfinished. In this case, the writing and directing are at fault for failing to satisfactorily complete a fantastic yarn. Though all aspects were successful for the majority of the film, the limited running time and lack of a compelling conclusion raise awareness of the gaping absence of drama. Without struggle, or an almost cartoonish sense of accomplishment, the story remains limited, though at times it offered glimpses at perfection.