The tag-line of this film is "The bastard love child of Chaplin's Great Dictator & Mel Brooks' The Producers". This is about right, although I think it's much closer to Brooks than Chaplin (and anyhow, the Chaplin film is not one of his best, aside from the iconic scene of the Hitlerian dictator bouncing an earth-like beach ball around the office).
It is a very weird, small comedy about a Jewish acting teacher who is hired by the Nazis to coach Hitler in preparation for a major speech he is giving in 1945. As the Nazi forces begin to lose in post-D-Day Europe, Hitler gets more and more depressed until he finally loses his speaking mojo. Goebbles, knowing the Fuhrer needs to address his people in order to restore some pride and joy in the country, takes Adolf Grunbaum out of the concentration camp and gets him to work with Hitler on his public delivery. Grunbaum is, of course, faced with the moral dilemma of helping his people's greatest enemy, but is taken in by Hitler's kindness to him and his almost pitiful innocence. He leverages his work to get his family our of the camps as well, but then faces pressure from them to take action to kill the dictator.
The tone of the movie is very strange. It's a very silly, over-the-top comedy that has some very sad, touching moments in it as well. Hitler is portrayed as a bumbling fool and an almost childlike relationship to the world. His high command keep information from him and spy through holes in paintings around the office wall. It is in fact a very Brooksian view of the guy - really he's just a punching bag, and we mostly laugh because we can laugh at him, rather than because his actions are necessarily funny or clever.
It is never clear that this story is either historical or fantasy - it doesn't go nearly as far as Inglorious Basterds in showing that it's all a big fake joke, but it also doesn't totally seem all that serious. Writer/director Dani Levy, a Jewish man from Switzerland, seems to be mostly retaliating over a grudge (OK, a grudge is not really what it is), more than giving us any real incisive critique or comedic piece.
Grunbaum is played by Ulrich Mühe (who beautifully played the Stasi agent from The Lives of Others a few years ago). He is very good, as are most of the other actors. But they are somewhat left out flapping in the wind with the film lacking much of a story. I didn't really feel there was anything for them to grab onto thematically or tonally throughout. Are all the characters other than Hitler supposed to be straight men and the whole thing is some massive joke (that goes rather above my head)? Are these great dramatic performances or comedic ones? This is mostly a silly and small movie - two adjectives that don't fit well naturally in connection to the Holocaust. I don't think it's terribly successful or insightful.
Stars: 1.5 of 4
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Big Fan (2009) (Tuesday, January 19, 2010) (217)
Big Fan is a small gritty drama about a loser parking lot attendant (Patton Oswalt) who is obsessed with the New York Giants. He works nights and spends time in his booth listening to sports talk radio and writing long slams at the Giants' next opponents that he reads on air when he calls in to the show. One night, he sees his favorite player pumping gas near his house in Staten Island. He and his buddy follow the guy into Manhattan and into a strip club. When Oswalt approaches the player to talk to him, the player beats the crap out of him. Oswalt then has to decide whether he will press charges against the player and possibly hurt his beloved team by getting the player suspended.
The story is very clever, tight and follows a pretty honest, realistic path for any superfans around the world (I could easily see a similar story playing out in England with soccer or Canada with hockey, for instance). It moves along quickly and keeps a good pace throughout. There are a few details, though, in the script (or in the direction) that are frustrating and badly executed (like how Oswalt doesn't make his calls to the radio station from a mobile phone outside of his mother's house where he lives, rather than in his childhood bedroom where his mother can hear him and get upset that he's keeping her awake). This is the first directing gig for Robert D. Siegel (who also wrote this film as well as The Wrestler) and perhaps with a bit more time, small things like this will be ironed out in his work.
Oswalt's performance is really great (he had a fabulous 2009, by the way, with this and two supporting performances in Observe and Report and The Informant!). He is pitiful but likable and is totally convincing in his blind dedication to his team and his sad life. He knows it's sad, but it's good for him. He's lazy and somewhat limited, but he enjoys the power and attention he gets from his nightly talk radio calls. He likes being seen as someone who knows something about stuff and enjoys the power he feels from his minor celebrity with listeners.
I think part of what makes the movie enjoyable is that we all know people roughly like Oswalt. We see the guy at work with the football team flag or schedule; we know friends who travel out of town for their team (even for a sure loss); we know people who do fantasy leagues sports and are obsessed with minutiae of sports. This movie feels like a plausible scenario in the modern world of superfandom and it's intimate, small-budget look lends a nice patina to the little story.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The story is very clever, tight and follows a pretty honest, realistic path for any superfans around the world (I could easily see a similar story playing out in England with soccer or Canada with hockey, for instance). It moves along quickly and keeps a good pace throughout. There are a few details, though, in the script (or in the direction) that are frustrating and badly executed (like how Oswalt doesn't make his calls to the radio station from a mobile phone outside of his mother's house where he lives, rather than in his childhood bedroom where his mother can hear him and get upset that he's keeping her awake). This is the first directing gig for Robert D. Siegel (who also wrote this film as well as The Wrestler) and perhaps with a bit more time, small things like this will be ironed out in his work.
Oswalt's performance is really great (he had a fabulous 2009, by the way, with this and two supporting performances in Observe and Report and The Informant!). He is pitiful but likable and is totally convincing in his blind dedication to his team and his sad life. He knows it's sad, but it's good for him. He's lazy and somewhat limited, but he enjoys the power and attention he gets from his nightly talk radio calls. He likes being seen as someone who knows something about stuff and enjoys the power he feels from his minor celebrity with listeners.
I think part of what makes the movie enjoyable is that we all know people roughly like Oswalt. We see the guy at work with the football team flag or schedule; we know friends who travel out of town for their team (even for a sure loss); we know people who do fantasy leagues sports and are obsessed with minutiae of sports. This movie feels like a plausible scenario in the modern world of superfandom and it's intimate, small-budget look lends a nice patina to the little story.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
Sunday, January 17, 2010
The Best and Worst Films of 2009
So here it is - my Top Ten list for movies released in New York City in 2009. Out of 214 films seen in the year these are the best. Forgive me for listing so many honorable mentions, but I couldn't hold back and, hey - it's my freaking list, so I can do what I want. You might notice that some of the films did not necessarily get four stars from me when I first saw them. I guess I should say that some movie stick with me a bit longer than the time it takes to write the blog, some of them getting a bit better and more solid over time. I've linked to the reviews, when available. Of course films that I saw before June (before I began this blog) don't have reviews. I'm thrilled with this list - I think it was a pretty solid year for movies and these are all really fabulous.
Best Films of 2009
1) Police, Adjective
Best Films of 2009
1) Police, Adjective
2) Hunger
3) 24 City
4) The Sun
5) In a Dream
6) Katyn
8) Hurt Locker
9) Two Lovers
Honroable Mentions:
Medicine for Melancholy
Worst Films of 2009
1) Julia2) Antichrist
3) Avatar
4) Tyson
5) Gamorrah
6) Lymelife
9) Orphan
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Fish Tank (Saturday, January 16, 2010) (4)
Andrea Arnold appeared on my radar a few years ago with her live-action short, Wasp, which ended up winning the Oscar for that category in 2004. It was a gritty neo-realist picture about a poor woman living in a somewhat rural area with a few out-of-wedlock kids without the financial ability to raise them.
Her follow-up film, Red Road, which was released in 2007, was also about the English lower classes, but this time from the point of view of a woman voyeur. She is not as poor as some, but she watches them and ultimately gets into a relationship with a lower-working-class man.
In her most recent film, Fish Tank, Arnold again delves into the world of poor people living on state assistance with little chance of a future. This is a relative thematic mix of the two previous films, dealing with children in trouble, voyeurism and hopeless poverty. The film focuses on Mia, a 15-year-old girl who loves dancing an hopes to use dancing to get out of the terrible world she's in. She lives with her single mother and her little sister (possibly from another father). She never goes to school, drinks beer all the time and picks fights with girls (and boys) in her area.
She meets a young man who is out of work and down on his luck and begins what seems to be a non-sexual relationship with him. At the same time, her mother meets a man, Connor, who is a decent-seeming guy. He loudly and wildly has sex with her mother, but also cares about her and her sister. He is clearly the most stable male force in her life, but the way her mother goes through men, it's clear he will not be around for too long. At some point her sexuality is peeked by the two men in her life and she begins to play with the idea of acting on it.
This is a world where nothing can really go right for Mia. She knows that life sucks and that she should keep her hopes to a minimum, but she can't help herself sometimes - leading to great disappointments along the way. The gritty frankness of the film is very appealing and puts us directly into the world we are seeing. There are no real flashy techniques used to tell the story - mostly it's a hand-held single camera that takes long shots. This realism helps to make us feel as desperate as Mia and as pitiful and hopeless.
Stylistically the film is wonderful, and is very reminiscent of other neo-realist fare from recent years - movies like Ballast or In-Between Days. The story here is a bit too complex, though, and this doesn't turn out as well as those films. The third act here is a bit sloppy with the story going in a direction is should not. It is a two-hour film and it needs to be only 90 or even 85 minutes.
The acting throughout is very solid. Mia is played by Katie Jarvis who seems to be a non-actor, or a new actor. She is very good and very believable. Connor is played beautifully by the Irish-German Michael Fassbender. This is a really great performance. Connor is a cool, nice happy guy who seems to not see the terrible world that surround him. It is easy to see why Mia is excited by him - he's a really dynamic guy.
I think Arnold really could have used a better story editor for the script - and I think this could have been a very good movie with some minor cuts. There is the nucleus of a good movie here - it just goes on a bit too long. I have generally liked the three films of hers that I have seen - and I look forward to seeing more.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
Her follow-up film, Red Road, which was released in 2007, was also about the English lower classes, but this time from the point of view of a woman voyeur. She is not as poor as some, but she watches them and ultimately gets into a relationship with a lower-working-class man.
In her most recent film, Fish Tank, Arnold again delves into the world of poor people living on state assistance with little chance of a future. This is a relative thematic mix of the two previous films, dealing with children in trouble, voyeurism and hopeless poverty. The film focuses on Mia, a 15-year-old girl who loves dancing an hopes to use dancing to get out of the terrible world she's in. She lives with her single mother and her little sister (possibly from another father). She never goes to school, drinks beer all the time and picks fights with girls (and boys) in her area.
She meets a young man who is out of work and down on his luck and begins what seems to be a non-sexual relationship with him. At the same time, her mother meets a man, Connor, who is a decent-seeming guy. He loudly and wildly has sex with her mother, but also cares about her and her sister. He is clearly the most stable male force in her life, but the way her mother goes through men, it's clear he will not be around for too long. At some point her sexuality is peeked by the two men in her life and she begins to play with the idea of acting on it.
This is a world where nothing can really go right for Mia. She knows that life sucks and that she should keep her hopes to a minimum, but she can't help herself sometimes - leading to great disappointments along the way. The gritty frankness of the film is very appealing and puts us directly into the world we are seeing. There are no real flashy techniques used to tell the story - mostly it's a hand-held single camera that takes long shots. This realism helps to make us feel as desperate as Mia and as pitiful and hopeless.
Stylistically the film is wonderful, and is very reminiscent of other neo-realist fare from recent years - movies like Ballast or In-Between Days. The story here is a bit too complex, though, and this doesn't turn out as well as those films. The third act here is a bit sloppy with the story going in a direction is should not. It is a two-hour film and it needs to be only 90 or even 85 minutes.
The acting throughout is very solid. Mia is played by Katie Jarvis who seems to be a non-actor, or a new actor. She is very good and very believable. Connor is played beautifully by the Irish-German Michael Fassbender. This is a really great performance. Connor is a cool, nice happy guy who seems to not see the terrible world that surround him. It is easy to see why Mia is excited by him - he's a really dynamic guy.
I think Arnold really could have used a better story editor for the script - and I think this could have been a very good movie with some minor cuts. There is the nucleus of a good movie here - it just goes on a bit too long. I have generally liked the three films of hers that I have seen - and I look forward to seeing more.
Stars: 2.5 of 4
The Last Station (2009) (Saturday, January 16, 2010) (216)
This movie has a somewhat strange setup for a little romantic dramedy. It takes place in the last days of Leo Tolstoy's life, when he was living in his country estate after publishing his masterpieces. He has become a cultural and folk hero in the early part of the 20th Century and his manager is trying to influence him to donate the copyrights of his works to the Russian people, rather than keeping them in his family's name.
The movement that has taken off as a result of his writing is in full swing and there is a hippie community on his estate that believes in shared property and no sex. Tolstoy, played by Christopher Plummer, is a lively old man with a long beard. He doesn't totally believe in the message of his followers (he loves sex and, despite dressing like a farmer, likes the riches that come with his life), but lets them fawn over him without correction.
His manager, played by Paul Giamatti, hires a young academic, played by James McAvoy, to be the old man's secretary, hoping he can steer the writer to his will. Tolstoy's wife, played by Helen Mirren, hates Giamatti and doesn't care at all about her husband's proto-socialist movement. She loves her wealth and wants to keep it and grow it.
The Tolstoyan ban on sexuality becomes hard for McAvoy to deal with when he meets a woman, played by the lovely Kerry Condon, who is in the movement on the estate. They fall in love and McAvoy has to figure out if he's going to listen to the passionate, romantic Baroness Tolstoy or the more severe, rational doctrine of the Tolstoy fundamentalists. As this is happening, Tolstoy himself has to figure out if he's going to listen to his brooding manager and give his books to the people or if he's going to listen to his wife and keep them in the family.
The film is a bit too convoluted, I think, for a rather silly and light story. There are too many layers of detail, when all that is needed is a light story about a man torn between his social beliefs (in abstinence) and his passionate heart. Generally the dialogue is snappy and funny, though it does get a bit more serious at times, especially as Tolstoy gets closer and closer to death. I can't figure out if maybe the problem is that it is trying to be a comedy at some level and that it should not be. Perhaps a straight light drama would have worked better. At any rate, it needs about 20 minutes cut out of it.
The acting here is getting a good amount of praise nowadays - and generally there are good performances here. Helen Mirren is very good as the grand old lady who sees her way of life under attack (of course it will come under further attack in a few years with the Bolshevik revolution). She is sensible and passionate and rather at her wits end with her husbands followers. Plummer is also good as a somewhat devilish old man who loves life and thinks all the attention on his is rather fun. He does deal with the copyright question, but this is not an issue that really presses on his mind too hard at first. Giamatti is basically the same character he played in the Howard Stern Private Parts movie - Pigvomit. He is a stuffed suit with no soul and no sense of humor. This role is a bit thin, and Giamatti's performance is OK - but seems a bit recycled. McAvoy is very good throughout the film and plays his character well dealing with the political mess he gets himself into.
I think this is a movie that probably comes off well as a script. It looks interesting, with a dynamic central character (Tolstoy), at least two main points of tension, including a love story. When put on screen, though, it is a bit dead. There is great scenery and nice costumes and everybody has a nice English accent (English accents being a stand-in for people speaking Russian, of course), but there is not much depth to the story. All the issues that the characters deal with feel very superficial and not all that emotional.
Stars: 2 of 4
The movement that has taken off as a result of his writing is in full swing and there is a hippie community on his estate that believes in shared property and no sex. Tolstoy, played by Christopher Plummer, is a lively old man with a long beard. He doesn't totally believe in the message of his followers (he loves sex and, despite dressing like a farmer, likes the riches that come with his life), but lets them fawn over him without correction.
His manager, played by Paul Giamatti, hires a young academic, played by James McAvoy, to be the old man's secretary, hoping he can steer the writer to his will. Tolstoy's wife, played by Helen Mirren, hates Giamatti and doesn't care at all about her husband's proto-socialist movement. She loves her wealth and wants to keep it and grow it.
The Tolstoyan ban on sexuality becomes hard for McAvoy to deal with when he meets a woman, played by the lovely Kerry Condon, who is in the movement on the estate. They fall in love and McAvoy has to figure out if he's going to listen to the passionate, romantic Baroness Tolstoy or the more severe, rational doctrine of the Tolstoy fundamentalists. As this is happening, Tolstoy himself has to figure out if he's going to listen to his brooding manager and give his books to the people or if he's going to listen to his wife and keep them in the family.
The film is a bit too convoluted, I think, for a rather silly and light story. There are too many layers of detail, when all that is needed is a light story about a man torn between his social beliefs (in abstinence) and his passionate heart. Generally the dialogue is snappy and funny, though it does get a bit more serious at times, especially as Tolstoy gets closer and closer to death. I can't figure out if maybe the problem is that it is trying to be a comedy at some level and that it should not be. Perhaps a straight light drama would have worked better. At any rate, it needs about 20 minutes cut out of it.
The acting here is getting a good amount of praise nowadays - and generally there are good performances here. Helen Mirren is very good as the grand old lady who sees her way of life under attack (of course it will come under further attack in a few years with the Bolshevik revolution). She is sensible and passionate and rather at her wits end with her husbands followers. Plummer is also good as a somewhat devilish old man who loves life and thinks all the attention on his is rather fun. He does deal with the copyright question, but this is not an issue that really presses on his mind too hard at first. Giamatti is basically the same character he played in the Howard Stern Private Parts movie - Pigvomit. He is a stuffed suit with no soul and no sense of humor. This role is a bit thin, and Giamatti's performance is OK - but seems a bit recycled. McAvoy is very good throughout the film and plays his character well dealing with the political mess he gets himself into.
I think this is a movie that probably comes off well as a script. It looks interesting, with a dynamic central character (Tolstoy), at least two main points of tension, including a love story. When put on screen, though, it is a bit dead. There is great scenery and nice costumes and everybody has a nice English accent (English accents being a stand-in for people speaking Russian, of course), but there is not much depth to the story. All the issues that the characters deal with feel very superficial and not all that emotional.
Stars: 2 of 4
Love Happens (2009) (Monday, January 11, 2010) (215)
Long cross-country plane trips are great for one thing: seeing terrible brainless movies that you've missed during the year. On my recent trip to Los Angeles, I was able to see Love Happens, a totally lifeless and recycled rom com with the lifeless-est actor in the world, Jennifer Aniston.
In it, Aaron Eckhart plays a guy whose wife died in a car accented and has turned the tragedy into a pick-yourself-up-and-dust-yourself-off self-help empire. It's not totally clear if he's a bad guy or a good guy who likes living dangerously or if he's just a good guy that seems like he might be bad but is actually just good. Whatever. He meets Aniston, a florist who is unexplainedly unlucky in love. The two meet and get off to a rough start and then fall in love. Then some more stuff happens with his self-help club. Then they go to a concert for a band I've never heard of.
I realized most of the way through the film that basically the filmmakers had given up trying to care about making a decent movie and were just putting out scenes with actors speaking words. It is totally boring and unoriginal. I'm not sure if Aniston and Eckhart have any chemistry together, I could barely pay attention to them. For some reason Martin Sheen and Frances Conroy are also in the film - I guess they need to pay their mortgages too.
There is nothing good in this film. It's not hateful, but it's very not good. Everything from the dialogue, to the acting to the direction is boring and hackneyed and bad. It shocks me that a Hollywood studio would put money into a turd like this. I guess it's cheap and easy to recoup the production investment. Whatever - that's a terrible reason to make a movie.
Leap Year, you're on my list for my next long plane-trip in mid-June!
Stars: 1 of 4
In it, Aaron Eckhart plays a guy whose wife died in a car accented and has turned the tragedy into a pick-yourself-up-and-dust-yourself-off self-help empire. It's not totally clear if he's a bad guy or a good guy who likes living dangerously or if he's just a good guy that seems like he might be bad but is actually just good. Whatever. He meets Aniston, a florist who is unexplainedly unlucky in love. The two meet and get off to a rough start and then fall in love. Then some more stuff happens with his self-help club. Then they go to a concert for a band I've never heard of.
I realized most of the way through the film that basically the filmmakers had given up trying to care about making a decent movie and were just putting out scenes with actors speaking words. It is totally boring and unoriginal. I'm not sure if Aniston and Eckhart have any chemistry together, I could barely pay attention to them. For some reason Martin Sheen and Frances Conroy are also in the film - I guess they need to pay their mortgages too.
There is nothing good in this film. It's not hateful, but it's very not good. Everything from the dialogue, to the acting to the direction is boring and hackneyed and bad. It shocks me that a Hollywood studio would put money into a turd like this. I guess it's cheap and easy to recoup the production investment. Whatever - that's a terrible reason to make a movie.
Leap Year, you're on my list for my next long plane-trip in mid-June!
Stars: 1 of 4
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Garbage Dreams (Sunday, January 10, 2010) (3)
The only real reason I went to see this movie is that it is on the 2010 Oscar Feature Documentary Shortlist and it is one of the few movies I have not seen from that list.
It is a very small movie about the Zabballeen, a Coptic Christian minority who live Egypt and are the only garbage collection service for most of the millions of people in and around Cairo. These are very, very poor people who have been collecting waste for more than 100 years because it was a job that needed to be done and it was the only job they could get as non-Muslims. We see how they recycle nearly everything they collect including plastic and glass bottles, metal, paper and organic materials. We see a team of social workers who take the people's children, who are not in formal school (because they work basically full time), and teach them tools like reading, writing and basic business skills.
At some point, we see the future of the Zabballeen being threatened by foreign waste removal companies who come in to make money in the rich neighborhoods of Cairo. These firms do not have the same pride in their work that the Zabballeen have (they see trash as a gift from God to them directly) and are not nearly as efficient as their poor competitors. Some estimates thrown out in the film are that the international firms are able to recycle only 20% of the garbage, while the Zabballeen are able to recycle 80% of it. (We have to take these numbers as true, but they are totally uncorroborated.)
The focus of the film is a group of a few young boys between 12- and 18-years-old. They bring a more intimate look at this world and we can see how these international firms bring with them a real getting-food-on-the-table worry for these people.
There is nothing especially brilliant about this film. Cute, naive kids are always a cheap and easy way of getting sympathy, but these youngsters are rather harmless. The middle of the film goes a bit slack and at times it feels a bit repetitive. Overall, this would have been a very good PBS special; it's only OK as a movie.
The best moment comes when a few of the boys are selected by a Welsh trash firm to visit Wales and see how garbage is collected in the developed world. (Garbage diplomacy! Who knew!) When the boys see what the Welsh do with their trash, they go a bit crazy as they see the tremendous waste that is not culled and recycled. It seems that the Welsh trash company is only 28% efficient with recycling. These boys try to explain to the management that they can recycle more, but their pleas fall on deaf ears.
This juxtaposition brings a fabulous, lucky moment. The indigent boys are brought in to learn lessons from the developed world, but they actually know more than their rich hosts. Brilliant.
Stars: 2 of 4
It is a very small movie about the Zabballeen, a Coptic Christian minority who live Egypt and are the only garbage collection service for most of the millions of people in and around Cairo. These are very, very poor people who have been collecting waste for more than 100 years because it was a job that needed to be done and it was the only job they could get as non-Muslims. We see how they recycle nearly everything they collect including plastic and glass bottles, metal, paper and organic materials. We see a team of social workers who take the people's children, who are not in formal school (because they work basically full time), and teach them tools like reading, writing and basic business skills.
At some point, we see the future of the Zabballeen being threatened by foreign waste removal companies who come in to make money in the rich neighborhoods of Cairo. These firms do not have the same pride in their work that the Zabballeen have (they see trash as a gift from God to them directly) and are not nearly as efficient as their poor competitors. Some estimates thrown out in the film are that the international firms are able to recycle only 20% of the garbage, while the Zabballeen are able to recycle 80% of it. (We have to take these numbers as true, but they are totally uncorroborated.)
The focus of the film is a group of a few young boys between 12- and 18-years-old. They bring a more intimate look at this world and we can see how these international firms bring with them a real getting-food-on-the-table worry for these people.
There is nothing especially brilliant about this film. Cute, naive kids are always a cheap and easy way of getting sympathy, but these youngsters are rather harmless. The middle of the film goes a bit slack and at times it feels a bit repetitive. Overall, this would have been a very good PBS special; it's only OK as a movie.
The best moment comes when a few of the boys are selected by a Welsh trash firm to visit Wales and see how garbage is collected in the developed world. (Garbage diplomacy! Who knew!) When the boys see what the Welsh do with their trash, they go a bit crazy as they see the tremendous waste that is not culled and recycled. It seems that the Welsh trash company is only 28% efficient with recycling. These boys try to explain to the management that they can recycle more, but their pleas fall on deaf ears.
This juxtaposition brings a fabulous, lucky moment. The indigent boys are brought in to learn lessons from the developed world, but they actually know more than their rich hosts. Brilliant.
Stars: 2 of 4
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
