Extraordinary Measures (2010)

1/3

I didn't even finish this movie, so I have no idea if the sick girl dies or not before Fraser and Ford find the cure for her disease. And, the thing is, this movie was so poorly written and acted that I just don't really care.

Brendon Fraser is fat and a bad actor and Keri Russell, who was his wife in the film, only plays one note and that gets old. Harrison Ford in this movie is probably much like the actor is in real life: a jerk who spends the entire movie yelling and whining. The plot moves very slowly and the writing was generally quite bottom-of-the-barrel.

After this movie put me to sleep two nights in a row, I decided I wouldn't waste my time trying to finish it. I didn't really want to see it to begin with, please note, but this was one that I had on my computer, having picked it up not knowing what it was. I guess this is what happens when you're bored at night in another country.

Trainspotting (1996)

2/3

Trainspotting sort of reminded me of a Scottish version of the movie SLC Punk: a youth is giving commentary about his lifestyle, his circle of friends, his town and in so doing exposes the local hip culture and drug problems. So that means lots of vulgarity and crudeness in general, naturally. Of course, this is a Scottish production, so you can imagine the foul language. Also, this movie, I felt, got darker than SLC Punk and had some kinda graphic consequences of heroin use (the dead baby, depression and desolation, AIDS, the awful sickness that comes with heroin withdrawal etc).

In the end, the young characters from both movies grow up, move on and get clean, but at quite an enormous cost. In the end, everybody loses here. Parts were funny and ridiculously out there, but its anti-drug message was pretty clear. So kids, don't do drugs! I still don’t quite have the title figured out, maybe it's some Scottish slang that I just don't understand.

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

2/3

Cameron Crowe is a favorite writer/director of mine and his Almost Famous is one of my top favorite movies. I also like Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson and Thomas Haydn Church. Plus, the title itself is intriguing, then I find out it's based on a true story. So, there was no question. I had to watch this movie. And it was okay, it did the trick, but wasn't phenomenal.

It was drenched in emotion and love. Which is why I’m sure Cameron Crowe brought in Aline Brosh McKenna as his co-writer, who did Devil Wears Prada and 27 Dresses, to nail all the nuances of those emotions. The film also focused on family and family dysfunction all around: The mother is dead, the father-son relationship was pretty miserable and they're going bankrupt. I guess I’m glad that I never had to deal with that as a child.

Nonetheless, it was a cool story and told about being adventurous and courageous and saying “why not?” In the end, I wish we had had more of Thomas Haydn Church's sarcastic comic relief and less mopey scenes, actually.

PS- great soundtrack.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

2/3

 

The Lovely Bones is a hard one to rank because I both loved it and hated it.

First off, obviously it was going to contain some seriously awesome and stunning scenery because Peter Jackson was behind the directorial helm. And it did: the heaven scenes where our (dead) protagonist's imagination blended with beautiful nature scenes were amazing- like the tree whose leaves suddenly turned into birds that flew away (see movie poster) or the life-sized ships in a bottle that were crashing ashore. This movie may seem like an odd choice for Jackson to direct, given what it's about, compared to his other films. Actually though, I think his adept ability to deliver such powerful fantastical sequences made this movie work. It does the girl's tale justice.

 

Also, the acting was solid. I tend to like Mark Wahlberg because there's a soft side to his gruff manliness, which definitely shines through here. Our protagonist, Saoirse Ronan (try pronouncing that name), played it just right- ghostly and eerie yet sad and longing. Stanley Tucci played a complete 180 role here especially when you compare this part to that in Julie & Julia or Devil Wears Prada. Finally, Susan Sarandan was hilarious and provided the brief comic relief that we desperately needed half-way through.

Okay, now to the obvious parts that I hated about this movie. I don't think I'm going to be giving anything away by saying that Stanley Tucci's character was a sociopathic pedophile who raped and murdered little girls. And boy was his character a creepy, ugly, scary, and messed up weirdo. I just can't feel at much peace with this movie, no matter how it ends, after having seen a vision of him in a bathtub filled with dirt and blood right after he murdered that girl. I'll bet that many people don't even feel satisfied with the ending, though I won't say anymore.

Overall, The Lovely Bones was a powerful and sad movie that certainly brought out a lot of emotions (including real fear) and hit home for everybody who cares about children and families-- well, for anybody who cares about people. It was written without fear and directed with talent. It's not an easy or really enjoyable movie to watch, but it does do a good job of showing how families struggle to come to terms and cope with such awful tragedies. If you watch it, you will certainly feel digusted and sad with a lesser chance of feeling uplifted.

Barton Fink (1991)

2/3

It makes sense that I should write a review of Barton Fink right after I write a review of Blue Velvet because they actually have a lot in common. Barton Fink is a strange movie, even for the Coen Brothers. Much like Blue Velvet, it maintains a pervasive sense of general darkness throughout and insanity is a driving (and ever-mounting) force. By the end, it was hard to tell what is real and what is a dream or Fink's imagination or the story he's writing, which is again, similar to Blue Velvet. It's not a happy movie or funny or light-hearted like other Coen Brother movies have been. Yet it was superbly written and acted.

Actually, writing and acting is what this movie relied upon, given that this had to be a low budget film-- no glitzy special effects here (in fact on the contrary, it seems to relish in its own simplicity and starkness). John Goodman was a super and very evil bad guy who reminded me of a ramped-up version of his role as a crooked Bible salesman in O, Brother Where Art Thou?. John Turturro's character, our protagonist, was misguided and self-centered, like many writers are perhaps, though I'm not sure if he really deserved all that befell him in the story. Since he was also lonely and sad; it seems his only real crime was to complain about the noise coming from the hotel room next to his. Or was that just a symptom of a deeper flaw? Hmm...

The secondary characters were not your cliche stock characters, rather they were very interesting: Tony Shalhoub was an eccentric and in-your-face studio exec; Steve Buscemi was a quirky hotel receptionist (Like Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers like to use the same handful of actors in just about all of their movies, in one role or another); the actor who played the father of Frasier in the sitcom (Steve Mahoney) here played a drunken, washed-up famous author (who I've heard the Coen Brothers based on the life of William Faulkner); the actor playing the producer did a great job making him an awful combination of a mobster (like the boss in Miller's Crossing) and Jerry Cromwell (the evil producer from the novel Karoo by Steve Tesich); even the elevator operator was unique.

Other than the great acting, this movie was full of symbolic/intellectual cinematic/literary 'elements' (I'm sure there's a more accurate term for them)- like the obnoxious mosquito buzzing just out of reach of the camera and the hotel being so hot that the wall paper glue melts and finally the entire floor catches on fire. Being the talented and clever writers/directors they are, the Coen Brothers added in these symbolic 'items' as the cherry on top of their screenplay, to offer a secondary layer of reflection/representation of its bigger themes (like mounting insanity or an evil being let out of the box)- these 'items' also add to the mystique and fascinating character of the film.

I guess that the Coen Brothers are known for writing interesting characters and clever stories that are offbeat and that make you think. This one was no different in that regard; Barton Fink was just one of their dark movies. I'd say it's in line with their Blood Simple and No Country for Old Men, both of which are tragic and gruesome stories. So all in all, I enjoyed it while at the same time found it nerve-wracking and awful- and that's why I respect it and consider it a well-made movie. Maybe if it were cheerful instead of gloomy, it would get 3 stars.

Blue Velvet (1986)

2/3

Blue Velvet had to earn my respect, even though it was so dark and eerie and enigmatic: the world that writer/director David Lynch created in this movie was so unique and interesting, be it deeply disturbed (I mean, look at the movie poster) that you just have to say 'wow.' I don't think that there are many people in Hollywood that have Lynch's ability or state of mind and I guess that's why I admired this film.

My Introduction to Screenwriting professor probably would have labeled the plot of Blue Velvet as "episodic," meaning that random things keep happening to the main characters, instead of things happening or 'growing' out of necessity. I may be inclined to agree with that thought, but in this case, I don't think it's a bad thing. In a way, the main character's random stumbling around town makes sense in regard to the style of this movie; Lynch has made the story flow like a bad dream, almost psychedelically.

After watching the movie, I couldn't help but tune in to some of the making-of documentary on my DVD's special features, to try to get a little insight. Somebody in the documentary clip mentioned how Lynch has sort of become America's Luis Bunel, and I can sort of see that. I watched Bunel's Tristana (1970) for a Spanish film class and I remember how it was full of very strange camera shots and symbolic references in his random standoutish tactics (for example, the phallic bell that turned out to be the decapitated head of a lustful father-figure). Anyway, Lynch seems to have locked on to a similar mentality about how to create a strange and gloomy, confusing world by using odd film techniques. In fact, later on in the documentary on Blue Velvet, somebody else mention the term "American Surrealism," which, yeah, makes sense.

Dennis Hopper had just finished rehab before making this movie. Apparently, his agent begged him not to play this role because of the probable negative image it would portray of him, and I can see why. Hopper was very scary and a crazy bad guy who did a wonderful (or awful?!) performance. What a creepy part!

Isabella Rossini is also a person of interest in this movie because she too is one of the eerie mysterious characters wrapped up in the dark plot. She realistically portrays insanity as well as personified, messed-up sexual desires. We can't help but wonder how her character ended up being so crazy-- was it caused by drugs or getting involved with the wrong people or the trauma inflicted by Hopper's character? Whatever the cause, damn.

Throughout the movie, the line "It's a strange world" kept on being repeated in different settings by different people. And I think that sums up Lynch's take on our world, at least as he showed it to us in Blue Velvet. He certainly likes to create these weird and crazy people and events, but he never explicitly answers our questions to solve the mystery. I suppose that for a lot of people, this can get on their nerves. His style is definitely not for everyone. But if you're into weird stories and are up for a unique and interesting style, I recommend this movie. It's at the minimum unforgettable.

American Splendor (2003)

1/3

I seriously wanted to like this movie. It is an indie classic and it starred Paul Giamati, so it was supposed to be right up my alley. But American Splendor was not my cup of tea.

The main character, Harvey Pekar (based on the real life guy, who made a few cameos throughout the film), was about the most vile and obnoxious protagonist in the history of protagonists, in my opinion. He was a whiny, disinterested, ungrateful slob who spent all of his time complaining about his life rather than trying to fix it. When in reality, he was actually a pretty lucky guy- he had a job, friends, a loving wife, fame, he survived cancer, people made a movie about his life etc.

From a writing standpoint, this movie was slow. Pekar's character was, as has been mentioned, very passive (at least from his own perspective). Things happened to him instead of him making them happen. No wonder I didn't sympathize with him. It seems like the only thing he actually did for himself was start to write comics, but even then, it was only after he stumbled across a random person who happened to be a cartoonist.

Another thing that annoyed me about American Splendor was the sort of artsy director thing of plugging cartoons into the frame. The technique may have been well received by critics who are more appreciative of that sort of thing, but I found it distracting. I think it reminded me of Hulk, which has made it to my worst-movies-of-all-times list.

So I can understand why Pekar's comics earned their acclaim; I'll admit it. His readers took all of his depressed insights with a grain of salt and found them funny as opposed to annoying. They might even be able to identify with one or two of his thoughts. But put into the context of his life, every single one of these pessimistic ideas every single second of this guy's life was just too much for me to handle. His depression and whining is so constant and overbearing that it's beyond funny for me. I get that the title of his comics and of this movie is sarcastic, but I think our way of life in America deserves a little more credit that the way Pekar views it all.

Thanks but no thanks on American Splendor. Sorry Giamati, not your best movie.