Jack Benny was one of the finest comedic performers in his, or any other, generation before him or since. In my opinion, he was just as clever as Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin before him. And like Keaton and Chaplin, Benny didn't need elaborate story lines and props to make us laugh. This film, from 1945, actually contradicts what I just wrote, but I believe it's still relevant. The story is complex, and there is a prop involved. First and foremost, it's a film centered around the talents of Jack Benny.
The film opens with Jack Benny as a trumpeter in the orchestra of the Paradise Coffee Program. The program's slogan is "Paradise Coffee...the coffee that makes you sleep." And that's just what happens. Benny falls asleep, and therin lies the film, an elaborate dream sequence. In the dream, Benny plays Athaniel, an angel in heaven who is given a mission. He's sent to earth to blow his trumpet promptly at midnight, in order to destroy earth. When they find out of this plan, two gentleman, Osidro and Doremus, two fallen angels who have stayed on earth to enjoy an extravagent life, enlist the help of debonair jewel thief Archie Dexter to steal the trumpet, therefore making it impossible for Athaniel to return to heaven. His first attempt, however, is foiled by Archie's beautiful accomplice, Fran, played by Delores Moran. Fran is desondent over a botched jewel heist, and she ends up on the same roof where Athaniel is about to carry out his plan, intending to commit suicide. Little does she know that the man who saves her is a so-called "angel of death". Athaniel decides to enjoy earth for one day, until midnight of the following night. The first thing he does is to do what mortals call "eating". Unknowing of our ways, when asked to pay his bill with something called "dollas" (the waiter is equipped with a thick New York accent), his trumpet is held in lieu of payment. Hilarity ensues. Athaniel gets his trumpet back, and then, with the help of fellow angel Elizabeth (who is also the harp player in his reality) he continues to carry out his mission. The climax of the film has the film's entire cast hanging from a high rise building, as midnight approaches. At the bottom of the chain of mortals and angels hanging from the building is Athaniel, desperately hanging to the legs of those above him with one arm, and clutching his beloved trumpet in the other.
I can only speculate, as this film was made nearly fourty years before I was born, but it seems to me that this film inspired the stories of films about angels sent to earth. The one that immediately comes to mind is John Travolta's "Michael", or even the Disney film "Angels in the Outfield". But neither of those films have the dark undertones of this film. While it's certainly a comedy, as one would expect from a film starring Jack Benny, it's really more of a dark comedy, a film that begins as a film centering around the idea of destruction and death. The look and aura of the film is also worth noting. It has a very noir-ish style to it. This is thanks to director Raoul Walsh, who was also the man behind one of my absolute favorite films "White Heat". This film, as well as "White Heat" use very strong female characters. Both female roles, Fran and Elizabeth are very strong and outspoken. This was one of Walsh's signatures. He always wrote female roles so they wouldn't just fade away behind their male counterparts, but instead, they would lend support and be able to stand their own ground next to the male leads. They were both ultimately able to lend comedic support to Jack Benny, one of the most excellent comedic talents of the twentieth century.
The film is a bit conviluted, and, without Jack Benny, it would have just been that, and I wouldn't be writing about it right now. But Jack Benny made a strange film about an elaborate dream, and made it worth watching. It's worth watching just to see Jack Benny crack a joke, but not cracking a smile. His deadpan delivery makes the joke all the more hilarious. This film is strange, but very intriguing.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
"Bye, Bye Birdie" is an Exceptional Musical Adaptation
There have been many successful Broadway-to-film transitions made in the last six decades; Brigadoon, My Fair Lady, and The Sound of Music, to name a few. As you, the reader, may know by now, I am a fan of a musical. But it has to have a good story behind it. While this story isn't exactly original (it was based on Elvis Presley's drafting into the army), the music is toe-tapping and the cast, for the most part, is excellent.
Dick Van Dyke reprises his stage role as Albert Peterson, a chemist turned song writer at the behest of his over-bearing mother, Mae (played by Maureen Stapleton). The work has dried up, and his secretary Rosie (played by Janet Leigh), is hoping for a marriage proposal. But Albert is reluctant. He wants his work to pick up, and he wants the approval of his dear mother. Enter Conrad Birdie, an Elvis-esque rock-star who has been drafted. Upon hearing the news, Rosie develops a plan to help Albert revive his career. He is to write a song for Conrad, called "One Last Kiss", at the end of which, Conrad is to kiss a lucky young fan. Enter the town of Sweet Apple, Ohio and the McAfee family. Young Kim McAfee (played by Ann-Margret, who would later star with the real Elvis Presley) is Conrad Birdie's number one fan. This film launched Ann's career, and, for a time, type-cast her into the certain type of sweet and sultry roles. Kim's father, played by Paul Lynde (who also reprises his original Broadway role) is understandably reluctant. That is until he finds out that the big event is to take place on the "Ed Sullivan Show", one that he greatly adores. Sullivan makes a cameo as himself. Sweet Apple is turned on it's ear, as news of Conrad Birdie's "One Last Kiss" spreads like wild fire.
For me, when I watch a musical, I don't watch it as such. I watch it as I would any other film. To me, the music and the score is secondary. The story, the acting, chemistry between the actors, and how well an actor can perform in a musical without coming across to the viewer as being uncomfortable doing so is paramount. Dick Van Dyke is a natural in a musical setting. This was one of his first films. After winning the Tony Award for his performance in the stage production, he was undoubtedly a natural choice to reprise the role in the film. Ann Margret, with this also being one of her first films, is also very natural. The fact that she's absolutely stunning and easy to look at certainly helps as well. With the exception of Paul Lynde, the rest of the cast seems like they don't really know what to do in a musical setting, and they seem a little uneasy. I would admittedly be a little intimidated by the prospect of being in a musical. But I would approach it as I do when I watch them. I would approach doing a musical as I would any other film. The most important thing for an actor to do, in any role, in any genre, is to understand that particular character, and once they do that, they come off believable, and more importantly, likable to the rest of us, the viewers.
One thing a film cannot do, and especially a musical film, is to pair an entire cast of actors which their audience wouldn't want to see in such a setting with a hard to follow story-line. "Moulin Rouge" to me is one of the worst offenders. I can't say I really care that Nicole Kidman's character is sick, or that Ewan MacGregor's character is in love with her character. Both Kidman and MacGregor are excellent actors in their own rights, but under different circumstances. Their respective agents obviously had no idea what it was they were getting their clients into. The story is so convoluted, it's frustrating. But, I digress. "Bye Bye Birdie" is not such a musical. It's well done and entertaining.
Despite the casting hiccups in this film, it's very enjoyable, and one that I recommend.
Dick Van Dyke reprises his stage role as Albert Peterson, a chemist turned song writer at the behest of his over-bearing mother, Mae (played by Maureen Stapleton). The work has dried up, and his secretary Rosie (played by Janet Leigh), is hoping for a marriage proposal. But Albert is reluctant. He wants his work to pick up, and he wants the approval of his dear mother. Enter Conrad Birdie, an Elvis-esque rock-star who has been drafted. Upon hearing the news, Rosie develops a plan to help Albert revive his career. He is to write a song for Conrad, called "One Last Kiss", at the end of which, Conrad is to kiss a lucky young fan. Enter the town of Sweet Apple, Ohio and the McAfee family. Young Kim McAfee (played by Ann-Margret, who would later star with the real Elvis Presley) is Conrad Birdie's number one fan. This film launched Ann's career, and, for a time, type-cast her into the certain type of sweet and sultry roles. Kim's father, played by Paul Lynde (who also reprises his original Broadway role) is understandably reluctant. That is until he finds out that the big event is to take place on the "Ed Sullivan Show", one that he greatly adores. Sullivan makes a cameo as himself. Sweet Apple is turned on it's ear, as news of Conrad Birdie's "One Last Kiss" spreads like wild fire.
For me, when I watch a musical, I don't watch it as such. I watch it as I would any other film. To me, the music and the score is secondary. The story, the acting, chemistry between the actors, and how well an actor can perform in a musical without coming across to the viewer as being uncomfortable doing so is paramount. Dick Van Dyke is a natural in a musical setting. This was one of his first films. After winning the Tony Award for his performance in the stage production, he was undoubtedly a natural choice to reprise the role in the film. Ann Margret, with this also being one of her first films, is also very natural. The fact that she's absolutely stunning and easy to look at certainly helps as well. With the exception of Paul Lynde, the rest of the cast seems like they don't really know what to do in a musical setting, and they seem a little uneasy. I would admittedly be a little intimidated by the prospect of being in a musical. But I would approach it as I do when I watch them. I would approach doing a musical as I would any other film. The most important thing for an actor to do, in any role, in any genre, is to understand that particular character, and once they do that, they come off believable, and more importantly, likable to the rest of us, the viewers.
One thing a film cannot do, and especially a musical film, is to pair an entire cast of actors which their audience wouldn't want to see in such a setting with a hard to follow story-line. "Moulin Rouge" to me is one of the worst offenders. I can't say I really care that Nicole Kidman's character is sick, or that Ewan MacGregor's character is in love with her character. Both Kidman and MacGregor are excellent actors in their own rights, but under different circumstances. Their respective agents obviously had no idea what it was they were getting their clients into. The story is so convoluted, it's frustrating. But, I digress. "Bye Bye Birdie" is not such a musical. It's well done and entertaining.
Despite the casting hiccups in this film, it's very enjoyable, and one that I recommend.
"Sin City" is a Brilliant, Visually Stunning albeit Bloody Film
While his face may not be well known, his name is synonymous with dark and gritty graphic novels. Frank Miller has been around for nearly fourty years as an comic book writer and illustrator. He was also responsible for penning the screenplays for two of the "Robocop" films, and spent years working for DC Comics, the company responsible for the "Batman" and "Robocop" comic series. Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino are both innovative and creative filmmakers with their own recognizable visual styles of film-making. This film does not belong to just one of these men. It's a seamless collaboration of the three. It's a dark, violent, star-studded and noir-style film, based on the graphic novel of the same name, written by Miller.
"Sin City" is a story about a run down, fictional locale, Basin City. There are several story lines at work in the film, but each story line is from a central character, who is, in some way, caught up in Basin City's corruption. The three principle characters represent three story lines.
John Hartigan, played by Bruce Willis, is a soon to be retired police officer who is called back into duty on his last night on the force. He takes it upon himself to rescue a young girl from the wrath of a spoiled young man, and the son of the corrupt Senator Roarke, who also happens to be a masochist and a rapist. After rescuing the young girl, Nancy, he cripples Roarke Jr. in such a way that would make any man bawl like a baby. After the rescue, he's shot and left for dead by his partner, Bob (played by Tarantino regular Michael Madsen) and falsely accused of raping young Nancy Callahan. After spending time in the hospital, he goes away to prison for eight years, letters written by Nancy under an alias being the only thing keeping him from committing suicide. He's then paroled, and sensing that Nancy is in trouble, finds her. Unbeknown-st to them, the young Roarke Jr. has also found Nancy. He's now a more masochistic, jaundiced version of his former self.
The next story involves a man with two strikes against him named Marv, played by Mickey Rourke. Marv is framed for the murder of a prostitute named Goldie, a leader of the "Old Town" district of Basin City, a "red-light" district of sorts that has long been self governed by the prostitutes who work the streets there. Marv's violent investigation leads him to an old farm on the edge of town. Come to find out that the farm belongs to the powerful Roarke family. He finds that this is a place of gruesome murder and mutilation.
The final story is one that doesn't have the parallels of the first two, but still tells of the corruption and seemingly lawless Basin City. Dwight (played by Clive Owen) is what you may call a freedom fighter, a protector of the ladies in Old Town. As it's explained in the film, a truce of sorts had been reached long ago between the police, politicians and working girls of old town. The ladies are allowed to govern and police themselves with no interference from the police.
At times, the three story lines briefly intersect, with the secondary characters interacting with the primary ones. For example, when Hartigan is paroled and finds out where Nancy works, he asks a waitress holding a tray of drinks where he might find Nancy. The waitress, Shellie (the late Brittany Murphy) directs Hartigan in Nancy's direction, to the stage on which Nancy performs for the pleasure of a crowded bar. Shellie is Dwight's lover. But the primary characters from each story line, at least in the film, never have a scene together.
While I've seen this film many times, and continue to watch in awe, I can't help but cringe at some of the dialogue. There are a few scenes in the film in which an actor, who may or may not be an intrinsic part of the scene, looks on while another actor is performing a particularly gruesome act, and simply says "Eeeeesh", as in, "I can't believe this is the only line they gave me to say in this scene." While this gives the film a certain "pulp" comic appeal, it can be tedious at times. It's a film with very dark and dramatic subject matter, but that doesn't mean that the actors have to amp up their acting to such a degree that it becomes campy. There's a lot to be said for subtlety. This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves of any actor, male or female. While some actors can "over-act" and in the next scene, even it out with a subtle action or line or combination of both, others aren't skilled enough to do this, and just end up being just outrageous and over the top. This may be seen in the form of an exaggerated facial expression, or an inflection put into a line when one isn't warranted. Some films may call for outrageous and over the top, and if it's appropriate, I love it. But if it's uncalled for, then it ruins a film for me. At times, this film is guilty of that, but it's not enough to turn me away.
This IS NOT a family friendly film. It will give young children and squeamish adults alike nightmares. But if you're looking for something uniquely beautiful, in all of it's gory and pulpy splendor, then this film is one for you.
"Sin City" is a story about a run down, fictional locale, Basin City. There are several story lines at work in the film, but each story line is from a central character, who is, in some way, caught up in Basin City's corruption. The three principle characters represent three story lines.
John Hartigan, played by Bruce Willis, is a soon to be retired police officer who is called back into duty on his last night on the force. He takes it upon himself to rescue a young girl from the wrath of a spoiled young man, and the son of the corrupt Senator Roarke, who also happens to be a masochist and a rapist. After rescuing the young girl, Nancy, he cripples Roarke Jr. in such a way that would make any man bawl like a baby. After the rescue, he's shot and left for dead by his partner, Bob (played by Tarantino regular Michael Madsen) and falsely accused of raping young Nancy Callahan. After spending time in the hospital, he goes away to prison for eight years, letters written by Nancy under an alias being the only thing keeping him from committing suicide. He's then paroled, and sensing that Nancy is in trouble, finds her. Unbeknown-st to them, the young Roarke Jr. has also found Nancy. He's now a more masochistic, jaundiced version of his former self.
The next story involves a man with two strikes against him named Marv, played by Mickey Rourke. Marv is framed for the murder of a prostitute named Goldie, a leader of the "Old Town" district of Basin City, a "red-light" district of sorts that has long been self governed by the prostitutes who work the streets there. Marv's violent investigation leads him to an old farm on the edge of town. Come to find out that the farm belongs to the powerful Roarke family. He finds that this is a place of gruesome murder and mutilation.
The final story is one that doesn't have the parallels of the first two, but still tells of the corruption and seemingly lawless Basin City. Dwight (played by Clive Owen) is what you may call a freedom fighter, a protector of the ladies in Old Town. As it's explained in the film, a truce of sorts had been reached long ago between the police, politicians and working girls of old town. The ladies are allowed to govern and police themselves with no interference from the police.
At times, the three story lines briefly intersect, with the secondary characters interacting with the primary ones. For example, when Hartigan is paroled and finds out where Nancy works, he asks a waitress holding a tray of drinks where he might find Nancy. The waitress, Shellie (the late Brittany Murphy) directs Hartigan in Nancy's direction, to the stage on which Nancy performs for the pleasure of a crowded bar. Shellie is Dwight's lover. But the primary characters from each story line, at least in the film, never have a scene together.
While I've seen this film many times, and continue to watch in awe, I can't help but cringe at some of the dialogue. There are a few scenes in the film in which an actor, who may or may not be an intrinsic part of the scene, looks on while another actor is performing a particularly gruesome act, and simply says "Eeeeesh", as in, "I can't believe this is the only line they gave me to say in this scene." While this gives the film a certain "pulp" comic appeal, it can be tedious at times. It's a film with very dark and dramatic subject matter, but that doesn't mean that the actors have to amp up their acting to such a degree that it becomes campy. There's a lot to be said for subtlety. This is probably one of my biggest pet peeves of any actor, male or female. While some actors can "over-act" and in the next scene, even it out with a subtle action or line or combination of both, others aren't skilled enough to do this, and just end up being just outrageous and over the top. This may be seen in the form of an exaggerated facial expression, or an inflection put into a line when one isn't warranted. Some films may call for outrageous and over the top, and if it's appropriate, I love it. But if it's uncalled for, then it ruins a film for me. At times, this film is guilty of that, but it's not enough to turn me away.
This IS NOT a family friendly film. It will give young children and squeamish adults alike nightmares. But if you're looking for something uniquely beautiful, in all of it's gory and pulpy splendor, then this film is one for you.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
"Daddy Long Legs' Is Excellent, Despite Being A Departure for Astaire
It's no secret that I'm a fan of a good musical. For the most part, they were backed by a good story and decent acting. But, especially in the Astaire/Rodgers era, they could become monotonous and formulaic. It's hard to take the song and dance out of a song and dance man like Astaire. He was often cast in a facet of show business, persuing somebody else in show business, or somebody aspiring to be in show business. This film, however, is not such a story. It was a departure for Astaire, but, of the post Astaire/Rodger's films, this was one of the best.
Astaire plays Jervis Pendleton III. Now here's where the film becomes an original Astaire film. Pendelton is not in show business. He is, in fact, a very wealthy and shrewd New York businessman. While traveling in France with his entourage, their car breaks down, and Jervis takes it upon himself to go for help, and get away from his headache that is everybody who has become dependant on him. He arrives at a large country home, looking for assistance. What he finds is an enchanting eighteen year old orphan, Julie (Leslie Caron), acting as school teacher for the other orphans. He soon finds out that she longs to attend college in America, but does not have the means to do so. Enchanted, but very aware of their age difference, he becomes her benefactor and anonymously sends her to a prestigious college in New England. She takes it upon herself to write her benefactor and thank him for his generosity, and keep him updated on her progress. For three years, she doesn't receive the response that she so richly desires. Then, fate injects. Pendleton arrives from New York to chaperone a dance at the behest of his sister and long lost (to him) niece. Julie just happens to be his niece's roommate. Unaware that Jervis is the "John Smith" to which she's been writing , Julie falls for this "Daddy Long Legs" as she describes him (from the shadow he cast on the wall at the orphanage where she first meets him), and he, in turn falls for her. It's not until the finale of the film that Julie's mysterious "John Smith" is revealed.
There's not an Astaire film that I've met that I haven't liked. I undoubtedly have my favorites, but the ones that I've seen have been excellent. It's true that, at times, the story lines to these films were recycled, with only the details and names changed. But each of these films have become classic examples of story telling. Modern day stars of the "Great White Way" have no doubt studied Astaire and his choreography and nuance. He was notorious for being a perfectionist when staging a dance, often pushing the other actors to the point of exhaustion. There are several complex dances in this film, most of which were choreographed by Astaire himself. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that his films have gone down in cinematic history as some of the best. He was an early version of Christopher Walken. In that, I mean that his acting didn't really change from one film to the next, except in rare instances within the context of the film. He didn't have to adapt to a film. The film and it's actors would adapt to him. While Astaire can be credited for this, the same can be said for the other actors in his films. They also have to adapt to his style of acting, his drive to make everything perfect, and his particular style of choreography. Leslie Caron was famously discovered by Gene Kelly when he was casting for "An American in Paris". Kelly and Astaire are excellent dancers in their own rights, but Caron is equally, if not more amazing, because she danced with both men, and she had to adapt her style to match her respective partner. Certainly, no easy task, but she was able to do it as well as anybody else.
Having seen several Astaire musicals, I would say that I enjoyed this one very much. It has a different feel than his films he made with Ginger Rodgers did ten to twenty years before, but this was nonetheless an excellent film that has endured in the last fifty-plus years since it's debut. Great story and acting make this film a must see for the fan of the nearly bygone musical film.
Astaire plays Jervis Pendleton III. Now here's where the film becomes an original Astaire film. Pendelton is not in show business. He is, in fact, a very wealthy and shrewd New York businessman. While traveling in France with his entourage, their car breaks down, and Jervis takes it upon himself to go for help, and get away from his headache that is everybody who has become dependant on him. He arrives at a large country home, looking for assistance. What he finds is an enchanting eighteen year old orphan, Julie (Leslie Caron), acting as school teacher for the other orphans. He soon finds out that she longs to attend college in America, but does not have the means to do so. Enchanted, but very aware of their age difference, he becomes her benefactor and anonymously sends her to a prestigious college in New England. She takes it upon herself to write her benefactor and thank him for his generosity, and keep him updated on her progress. For three years, she doesn't receive the response that she so richly desires. Then, fate injects. Pendleton arrives from New York to chaperone a dance at the behest of his sister and long lost (to him) niece. Julie just happens to be his niece's roommate. Unaware that Jervis is the "John Smith" to which she's been writing , Julie falls for this "Daddy Long Legs" as she describes him (from the shadow he cast on the wall at the orphanage where she first meets him), and he, in turn falls for her. It's not until the finale of the film that Julie's mysterious "John Smith" is revealed.
There's not an Astaire film that I've met that I haven't liked. I undoubtedly have my favorites, but the ones that I've seen have been excellent. It's true that, at times, the story lines to these films were recycled, with only the details and names changed. But each of these films have become classic examples of story telling. Modern day stars of the "Great White Way" have no doubt studied Astaire and his choreography and nuance. He was notorious for being a perfectionist when staging a dance, often pushing the other actors to the point of exhaustion. There are several complex dances in this film, most of which were choreographed by Astaire himself. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that his films have gone down in cinematic history as some of the best. He was an early version of Christopher Walken. In that, I mean that his acting didn't really change from one film to the next, except in rare instances within the context of the film. He didn't have to adapt to a film. The film and it's actors would adapt to him. While Astaire can be credited for this, the same can be said for the other actors in his films. They also have to adapt to his style of acting, his drive to make everything perfect, and his particular style of choreography. Leslie Caron was famously discovered by Gene Kelly when he was casting for "An American in Paris". Kelly and Astaire are excellent dancers in their own rights, but Caron is equally, if not more amazing, because she danced with both men, and she had to adapt her style to match her respective partner. Certainly, no easy task, but she was able to do it as well as anybody else.
Having seen several Astaire musicals, I would say that I enjoyed this one very much. It has a different feel than his films he made with Ginger Rodgers did ten to twenty years before, but this was nonetheless an excellent film that has endured in the last fifty-plus years since it's debut. Great story and acting make this film a must see for the fan of the nearly bygone musical film.
83rd Academy Awards Were Mostly a Bomb
As a film critic, of sorts, I would be remiss if I didn't talk about this year's Academy Awards. Every year, the who's who of Hollywood and abroad come together to honor each other's accomplishments in film in the past year. Film veterans and newcomers alike sit together as if they have always known one another. Each year, the rest of us sit at home, possibly having watched the honored films. We are entertained, amused, and, at times, moved to tears. But rarely are we inclined to praise such achievements as a digital video recorder (DVR). Sure, it moves through pesky commercials with ease, but using it to fast forward through long rambling speeches of the honorees, not to mention the seemingly lackluster chemistry of the hosts. This year, while parts of the broadcast were entertaining and moving, I couldn't understand what the show's producers were thinking this year.
In past years, such entertainers such as Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crystal, and Whoopi Goldberg, just to name a few, have adorned the stage at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood. Apparently everybody else was busy this year. I found that Anne Hathaway (who is usually likeable) and Academy Award nominee James Franco (for his performance in "127 Hours") didn't rise to the occasion. It felt like watching an elementary school version of a Shakespeare play. Sure, there were some laughs. Most of them came with James Franco trying not to appear inebriated on stage. At one point, Anne Hathaway broke into song, preluding it with the fact that her performance was supposed to be a duo with Aussie actor Hugh Jackman, who backed out at the last minute. Whether or not this is true is beside the point. Going back to the elementary school analogy, it was like watching your child break character in the middle of the play and say, "Hi mommy...hi daddy...". It's kind of cute, yes, but at a certain point, you can't help but being a little embarrassed, for them, and for yourself.
Shall we talk about the acceptance speeches and statuette presentations? While the broadcast has become famous over the years for long acceptance speeches, the award-winning actor or actress being gradually interrupted by a swelling orchestra, informing them that they've over stayed their welcome, the award presenters, who are often past award winners, were somewhat flat this year. I do enjoy when a host or presenter interjects their own personal stories of an actor or nominee. This was present this year, but as the saying goes, "too little, too late." The barbs came late in the broadcast, as the "Best Actor/Actress" awards were being given out. Nonagenerian Kirk Douglas presented the award for "Best Supporting Actress" (Melissa Leo for "The Fighter". It was well deserved). As enduring as it is to see somebody come back from a debilatating stroke, it was painful to see Douglas struggle through his speech. He was un-intelligible at times, often slurring his words. He appeared to be man of a hundred and twenty, rather than one of his nearly ninety five years. I will concede that he was an excellent actor in his day, just as his son is now. He received a well deserved standing ovation upon his entrance. Many of the long rambling acceptance speeches often come from the winners of the "Foreign Film" category, evidenced by Roberto Benigni's win in 1998 for "Life is Beautiful". I must have blocked this part out from this year's show, but suffice it to say, there were plenty of orchestral interruptions this year, which made me love my DVR even more.
Things weren't certainly all thorns this year. There were a few roses. The "In Memoriam" segment in which the Academy honors those actors who have passed away in the last year is always touching. Colin Firth and Natalie Portman both deservedly won in their respective categories, he for "The King's Speech", she for "Black Swan". "Inception", which I thought was one the best films of years past, won for visual effects and cinematography, certainly both well deserved. Randy Newman won for best song. When he stepped on stage to give his acceptance speech, he facetiously acknowledged his poor track record, this being only his second win in a staggering twenty nominations. These were a few gems in a broadcast which was otherwise plagued with oscar winners overstaying their welcome, and seemingly uncomfortable first time hosts.
This is probably the only awards show I look forward to. Being such a large fan of cinema, it's hard not to get wrapped up in the glitz that is Hollywood's biggest night. But number eighty three fell short in many ways. I, along with nearly a third of the entire world's population will be back next year. Hopefully, they will have ironed out the kinks from this year.
In past years, such entertainers such as Steve Martin, Alec Baldwin, Billy Crystal, and Whoopi Goldberg, just to name a few, have adorned the stage at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood. Apparently everybody else was busy this year. I found that Anne Hathaway (who is usually likeable) and Academy Award nominee James Franco (for his performance in "127 Hours") didn't rise to the occasion. It felt like watching an elementary school version of a Shakespeare play. Sure, there were some laughs. Most of them came with James Franco trying not to appear inebriated on stage. At one point, Anne Hathaway broke into song, preluding it with the fact that her performance was supposed to be a duo with Aussie actor Hugh Jackman, who backed out at the last minute. Whether or not this is true is beside the point. Going back to the elementary school analogy, it was like watching your child break character in the middle of the play and say, "Hi mommy...hi daddy...". It's kind of cute, yes, but at a certain point, you can't help but being a little embarrassed, for them, and for yourself.
Shall we talk about the acceptance speeches and statuette presentations? While the broadcast has become famous over the years for long acceptance speeches, the award-winning actor or actress being gradually interrupted by a swelling orchestra, informing them that they've over stayed their welcome, the award presenters, who are often past award winners, were somewhat flat this year. I do enjoy when a host or presenter interjects their own personal stories of an actor or nominee. This was present this year, but as the saying goes, "too little, too late." The barbs came late in the broadcast, as the "Best Actor/Actress" awards were being given out. Nonagenerian Kirk Douglas presented the award for "Best Supporting Actress" (Melissa Leo for "The Fighter". It was well deserved). As enduring as it is to see somebody come back from a debilatating stroke, it was painful to see Douglas struggle through his speech. He was un-intelligible at times, often slurring his words. He appeared to be man of a hundred and twenty, rather than one of his nearly ninety five years. I will concede that he was an excellent actor in his day, just as his son is now. He received a well deserved standing ovation upon his entrance. Many of the long rambling acceptance speeches often come from the winners of the "Foreign Film" category, evidenced by Roberto Benigni's win in 1998 for "Life is Beautiful". I must have blocked this part out from this year's show, but suffice it to say, there were plenty of orchestral interruptions this year, which made me love my DVR even more.
Things weren't certainly all thorns this year. There were a few roses. The "In Memoriam" segment in which the Academy honors those actors who have passed away in the last year is always touching. Colin Firth and Natalie Portman both deservedly won in their respective categories, he for "The King's Speech", she for "Black Swan". "Inception", which I thought was one the best films of years past, won for visual effects and cinematography, certainly both well deserved. Randy Newman won for best song. When he stepped on stage to give his acceptance speech, he facetiously acknowledged his poor track record, this being only his second win in a staggering twenty nominations. These were a few gems in a broadcast which was otherwise plagued with oscar winners overstaying their welcome, and seemingly uncomfortable first time hosts.
This is probably the only awards show I look forward to. Being such a large fan of cinema, it's hard not to get wrapped up in the glitz that is Hollywood's biggest night. But number eighty three fell short in many ways. I, along with nearly a third of the entire world's population will be back next year. Hopefully, they will have ironed out the kinks from this year.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
RED, While Somewhat Fomulaic, is Funny, Action Packed.
We have nearly been inundated with action comedies over the years. The "Lethal Weapon" "Die Hard" and "Beverly Hills Cop" franchises, among others, helped join what were once two seperate genres into one that has become one of the most prolific in recent years. In an earlier entry, I spoke of the film "The Expendables" which brought together many of our action heroes of the last two decades. This film is similar, in that it brings together many top stars. But that's where the similarity ends. The stars in this film, while some are known for their roles in action films, others are not. So, this film would seemingly come off as ridiculous. One may ask themselves why an actress such as Helen Mirren (who won an Oscar for her portrayal of Queen Elizabeth) would play a former assassin. But she does here, quite well.
Bruce Willis, who IS known for his role in one of the best action franchises of all time "Die Hard" plays Frank Moses, a former CIA black-ops agent who is now living a quiet suburban life. The highlight of his days are speaking to a young pension case worker, Sarah, played by the gorgeous Mary Louise Parker. Sarah and Frank don't know each other from adam. But they soon discover that while Frank's life is boring and consists of speaking to a lovely young woman, the highlight of Sarah's life is the reading of her romance novels. Finding that they have their dreary mondaine lives in common, the grow to admire each other. That's soon to change. Frank's past catches up with him, and he's forced back into service, only to find himself and Sarah caught up in a conspiracy. In order to save their lives, Frank must re-unite with his old black ops team, which include Helen Mirren, the incomparable Morgan Freeman and John Malkovich, each of whom have been classified RED, Retired and Extremely Dangerous. What ensues is a mixture of typical action comedy fare, and entertainment and originality stemming from the actors' portrayals.
Bruce Willis is an actor, much like Christopher Walken, in that his acting style is nearly the same in every film. He has a very monotone, stony delivery with the occasional emotional outburst that will sometimes catch the viewer off guard. This is not a bad thing. It's just his style, and it works well. He doesn't have to be emotionally over the top. His monotonous tone will convey any emotion. He has a very expressive face, and that's where the variety his acting takes place. His tone doesn't have to change. His eyes will say what his voice does not. Another actor in the film, John Malkovich, is notorious for playing quirky, off beat characters. Perhaps the man himself is just a little quirky. But he's one of my favorite actors because of it. In this film, he plays a crazy, paranoid weapons expert who has typical bouts of paranoia, saying that "they" are after him, and "they're" spying on him from the satellites in space. You almost get the feeling that perhaps Malkovich has the same ideas. His characterization is fitting of the man.
The story itself seems familiar. A retired agent is all of the sudden sprung back into action because of his past. It sounds like an episode of "24". But, bringing together a group of actors who you would not normally see in a film such as this is what makes this film refreshing and original. You would believe that this group would have worked together in the past, and will continue to work together. This can be credited to the versatility of the actors themselves. Normally, you would not see a group of actors with such varied backgrounds, but they all work together, and they look like they've been doing so for years.
Overall, I enjoyed this film. Only occasionally did I feel that it wasn't worth my time. But it wasn't enough to turn me off of it completely. It was a good cast, decent script, and passable acting. I'd recommend it for those who are looking to be entertained. I definitely was.
Bruce Willis, who IS known for his role in one of the best action franchises of all time "Die Hard" plays Frank Moses, a former CIA black-ops agent who is now living a quiet suburban life. The highlight of his days are speaking to a young pension case worker, Sarah, played by the gorgeous Mary Louise Parker. Sarah and Frank don't know each other from adam. But they soon discover that while Frank's life is boring and consists of speaking to a lovely young woman, the highlight of Sarah's life is the reading of her romance novels. Finding that they have their dreary mondaine lives in common, the grow to admire each other. That's soon to change. Frank's past catches up with him, and he's forced back into service, only to find himself and Sarah caught up in a conspiracy. In order to save their lives, Frank must re-unite with his old black ops team, which include Helen Mirren, the incomparable Morgan Freeman and John Malkovich, each of whom have been classified RED, Retired and Extremely Dangerous. What ensues is a mixture of typical action comedy fare, and entertainment and originality stemming from the actors' portrayals.
Bruce Willis is an actor, much like Christopher Walken, in that his acting style is nearly the same in every film. He has a very monotone, stony delivery with the occasional emotional outburst that will sometimes catch the viewer off guard. This is not a bad thing. It's just his style, and it works well. He doesn't have to be emotionally over the top. His monotonous tone will convey any emotion. He has a very expressive face, and that's where the variety his acting takes place. His tone doesn't have to change. His eyes will say what his voice does not. Another actor in the film, John Malkovich, is notorious for playing quirky, off beat characters. Perhaps the man himself is just a little quirky. But he's one of my favorite actors because of it. In this film, he plays a crazy, paranoid weapons expert who has typical bouts of paranoia, saying that "they" are after him, and "they're" spying on him from the satellites in space. You almost get the feeling that perhaps Malkovich has the same ideas. His characterization is fitting of the man.
The story itself seems familiar. A retired agent is all of the sudden sprung back into action because of his past. It sounds like an episode of "24". But, bringing together a group of actors who you would not normally see in a film such as this is what makes this film refreshing and original. You would believe that this group would have worked together in the past, and will continue to work together. This can be credited to the versatility of the actors themselves. Normally, you would not see a group of actors with such varied backgrounds, but they all work together, and they look like they've been doing so for years.
Overall, I enjoyed this film. Only occasionally did I feel that it wasn't worth my time. But it wasn't enough to turn me off of it completely. It was a good cast, decent script, and passable acting. I'd recommend it for those who are looking to be entertained. I definitely was.
Story of Facebook is Excellent, Worthy of It's Praise
It's amazing how quickly something comes about, and how quickly we all take it for granted. Facebook seems as common now as McDonalds, or Google. Only twenty short years ago, the Internet was a foreign concept. These days, Google and Facebook are common verbs in our vernacular. Phrases such as "Google it", or "Facebohok me" are commonplace. What began as a drunken tirade in a Harvard dorm room in 2003 has become a billion dollar internet monopoly, and giving it's founder, Mark Zuckerberg the title of youngest billionaire in the world. David Fincher, best known for directing films such as "Fight Club" and "Zodiac" expertly directs this young cast.
Zuckerberg, as he's portrayed (excellently by Jesse Eisenberg) in the film, was a genius, a fact of which he was well aware. He seemed to be bored in his classes. At the onset of the film, he and his girlfriend Erica are sitting in a campus coffeeshop. Erica tells Mark that she no longer wants to be in a relationship with him. Zuckerberg, heart broken, returns to his dorm room and begins to exact his revenge. He furiously begins to write programming and posts unflattering pictures and comments of his ex-girlfriend. With the help of his roommate, Eduardo, played by Andrew Garfield, this initial programming eventually becomes an international phenomenon. But, with his success, he ironically becomes somewhat of a social piriah. His fellow Harvard students and rivals, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, both played by Armie Hammer, appeal to the president on the university that this "code" was actually their idea, and that they'd been ripped off by Zuckerberg. This eventually leads to litigation, not only by the Winklevoss brothers, but by Eduardo as well. The story moves back and forth between the trial that took place recently, and the use of flashback. While Zuckerberg made enemies in the process, he also gained allies, namely investor and troubled co-founder of Napster, Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake, who seems to have come into his own as an actor, and not just a former boybander.
If I were to change anything about the film, it would have been the constant moving between past and present. While it was certainly effective in telling the story, I felt that a telling of the story, and leading up to the litigation and ensuing trial would have been just as equally effective. However, in the way it was presented, it was almost as if you were watching two seperate stories on a split screen. In this way, the viewer doesn't feel as though they'd have to go back in the film to understand what it is they are watching now. Each point that is made in the courtroom is explained in the telling of the story through flashback.
I didn't find the acting of the young cast pretentious in anyway. Often, I've noticed, in a film consisting of young up and comers, a good story can be overshadowed by inexperience of either the actor or the director, who try to do too much. This can often ruin a film for me. This was my fear with this film, but any apprehension I had was relieved and I was able to enjoy this film.
This story of an internet phenomenon that many of us now take for granted was well written, acted and portrayed. It is predicted to do well this awards season, and rightly so.
Zuckerberg, as he's portrayed (excellently by Jesse Eisenberg) in the film, was a genius, a fact of which he was well aware. He seemed to be bored in his classes. At the onset of the film, he and his girlfriend Erica are sitting in a campus coffeeshop. Erica tells Mark that she no longer wants to be in a relationship with him. Zuckerberg, heart broken, returns to his dorm room and begins to exact his revenge. He furiously begins to write programming and posts unflattering pictures and comments of his ex-girlfriend. With the help of his roommate, Eduardo, played by Andrew Garfield, this initial programming eventually becomes an international phenomenon. But, with his success, he ironically becomes somewhat of a social piriah. His fellow Harvard students and rivals, twins Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, both played by Armie Hammer, appeal to the president on the university that this "code" was actually their idea, and that they'd been ripped off by Zuckerberg. This eventually leads to litigation, not only by the Winklevoss brothers, but by Eduardo as well. The story moves back and forth between the trial that took place recently, and the use of flashback. While Zuckerberg made enemies in the process, he also gained allies, namely investor and troubled co-founder of Napster, Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake, who seems to have come into his own as an actor, and not just a former boybander.
If I were to change anything about the film, it would have been the constant moving between past and present. While it was certainly effective in telling the story, I felt that a telling of the story, and leading up to the litigation and ensuing trial would have been just as equally effective. However, in the way it was presented, it was almost as if you were watching two seperate stories on a split screen. In this way, the viewer doesn't feel as though they'd have to go back in the film to understand what it is they are watching now. Each point that is made in the courtroom is explained in the telling of the story through flashback.
I didn't find the acting of the young cast pretentious in anyway. Often, I've noticed, in a film consisting of young up and comers, a good story can be overshadowed by inexperience of either the actor or the director, who try to do too much. This can often ruin a film for me. This was my fear with this film, but any apprehension I had was relieved and I was able to enjoy this film.
This story of an internet phenomenon that many of us now take for granted was well written, acted and portrayed. It is predicted to do well this awards season, and rightly so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
