starring: Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella
Rated: Rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some violence and disturbing images.
The writer and director of Donnie Darko, Richard Kelly, is a gifted filmmaker who brings original concepts, characters, and alternate realities to life while relying on a more classical, Hitchcock-like styles of storytelling.When watching his latest film, The Box, his talent really shines through: an incredible concept, filled with possibilities and moral dilemmas, supernatural imagery, and subtlety that keeps you on the edge of your seat.Unfortunately, his subtlety is also his greatest weakness, which is also apparent in The Box.With more relaxed editing and more definition to what is happening on screen, The Box would be one of the best sleeper-hits of the year.Instead, we’re left with a vague impressions and ideas of what may (or may not) have actually happened in the story.It’s as if the Kelly fits pieces of the puzzle together, but it still doesn’t resemble a picture.The last act is so crammed with sudden-supernatural imagery and plot that one starts to question what is truly happening rather than feeling the punches our heroes are taking.Kelly made many right choices (James Marsden is the real deal) and his subtly on some of the “answers” is a good thing.However, I ended up having to access a spoiler-filled interview with him to explain what happened and why.The Box is a brilliant premise that feels wasted, simply because we can’t follow Kelly’s train of thought.It’s a good thing that Kelly thinks outside the box, but he can’t forget that those whom he is telling his stories too simply don’t understand him.
Rated: PG-13 for some violence and a scene of sensuality
I feel a certain amount of apathy toward reviewing Twilight, simply because minds are already made up about the movie (and books.)While girls in high school (or high schoolers at heart) swoon over the romantic gazes of Edward and Bella, pre-teen boys over the vampire fight scenes, and the haters gawk at the poor acting and script (“you are my brand of heroin”),I looked at the movie with a certain amount of grace.Sure, it’s corny, with little production value, and with no conflict until the last third of the movie, but it’s no different than High School Musical, or other teen-geared films; they're all painful to watch, for me.Twilight is a re-packaged Romeo and Juliet story, minus good writing and replacing it with vampire fangs.We are suckers for forbidden romances, and every decade has had it’s take: the 1990s’ had Titanic, the 1980s’ had Dirty Dancing, and the 1970s’ had Love Story. I'm not a child of the 2000s, but it's no-surprise to me why the film is popular: original premise, plenty of action, and enough teen-romance to make prom. And, while I’m certainly not lining up to see the sequel New Moon, I certainly can knock the essence of what it’s trying to be. Unfortunately, it comes across too juvenile.
Spike Jonze’s Wild Things adaptation is a little too faithful
Where the Wild Things Are directed by: Spike Jonze starring: Max Records, Catherine Keener rated: PG for mild thematic elements, some adventure action and brief language.
In the children’s section of my hometown library, there hangs a huge painting from Maurice Sendak’s book Where the Wild Things Are. It captures a mystical forest where a giant, bull-like creature lies fast asleep. I remember being enchanted as a kid, staring at the picture and imagining all sorts of stories and adventures to coincide with the painting. I guess I was much like the book’s protagonist, Max, a child with a vivid imagination and a taste for mischief. Thankfully, Max is a lot more understandable and likable in Spike Jonze’s movie adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are. Like the book, the film follows Max, a child in need of some discipline, who leaves the troubles of the real world to discover a realm of his imagination, inhabited by creatures who behave and react more so in a manner he can understand.
Spike Jonze (Adaptation, Being John Malkovich) remains very faithful to the book, making sure to capture the beauty and subtlety of Sendak’s classic. Because of this, most of the movie will go over kids (and some adults) heads, but I, for one, was fine with that. The cinematography and scope were simply breathtaking, accenting shots with golden lens flares, almost like exclamation points to scenes.
Jonze also fleshed out the character of Max (a terrific performance by Max Records), giving a certain understanding to his sinful behavior. Max acts out of a fear of losing the love of those around him, especially his mother (the terrific Catherine Keener), and the lack of this security drives him to be a disobedient child. We don’t excuse his actions, but he’s certainly a more likable character than his literary counterpart.
Jonze’s faithfulness does have it's drawbacks; like the book, the story has little external plot. While in most movies, the plot forces character flaws to surface, Wild Things makes the character flaws, themselves, the plot of the movie, making it difficult to feel much for Max's imaginary creatures. After all, their actions cause the harm in the story, and not any outside antagonist, leaving the plot to feel prolonged. It’s a series of temper-tantrums instead of a consistently building plot, which becomes very frustrating. Sure, the creatures are images of Max’s own issues and insecurities, but after an hour and a half, even he grows tired of them. It took me half of that time.
Although unfair, I couldn’t help but compare it to the Steve Zaillian film Searching for Bobby Fischer. Both films are children’s movies for adults, are visually stunning (thank you, Conrad Hall), and have themes of the insecurity of losing one’s love. However, Bobby Fischer’s plot gives the characters room to grow, fail, and find redemption. Wild Things forces this growth to become the plot. That concept can work with short films, but becomes tiresome for a feature. Unlike most adapted picture books, Wild Things hits the emotions of the book with plenty of style and beauty. Unfortunately, it also takes an hour or so longer to tell.
Movie #26, (500) Days of Summer, was already reviewed on this site.So, we’ll skip ahead to #25…
Once
directed by: John Karney
starring: Glen Hansard, Marketa Irglova
Rated: R for Language
Musicals are often mocked for their campiness and unrealistic nature.(How many people break into song while walking down the street?)These factors don’t apply to Once; it’s the antithesis of the musical.It handles the music in more realistic settings, captures downtown Dublin in documentary style cinematography, and has a story that is compelling yet still realistic.The chorale musical numbers and crazy dance sequences are replaced with heart: pure, simple, all-out emotion. Although the indie-folk soundtrack is incredible, I think it’s the emotion of the music that audiences seem to connect with; it’s a movie that expresses what people feel without it being over dramatic or too original. It’s as if the characters (both of who are unnamed) are more representatives then actual characters, themselves.And that connection gives Once a strength that is missing from most movies, which are more interested in an original story than making that connection.It’s truly a unique and powerful movie, one that’s worth viewing more than once.
Starring: Nicholas Cage, Alison Lohman, Sam Rockwell
Rated: PG-13 for Thematic Elements, Violence, Some Sexual Content and Language
Deceit is a powerful and dangerous act; it alters one’s perceptions and understanding of people, situations, and intent, which causes devastating consequences.No film expresses this moral quite like Ridley Scott’s comedic thriller Matchstick Men, a film which follows Roy (Nicholas Cage), a legendary con-artist, who is planning the con of a lifetime with a fellow con-man (the terrific Sam Rockwell).However, Roy suddenly comes into contact with his estranged daughter (Alison Lohman), which leads to the practical and moral dilemmas of Roy trying to be a good father while dealing with his life of crime and deceit.Despite his obvious flaws, we seem to connect with Roy; he’s an idealist who wants to be a good person, and reconnecting with his daughter gives him a reason for that growth.Unfortunately, he’s also aware of his own apparent hypocrisy; he’s a man who mirrors his daughters’ disobedience and ignores his own guidance, but with even more devastating consequences . Some may be shocked that this film is on my list of favorite movies.After all, the film wasn’t praised by critics and didn’t get any awards for Ridley Scott and company.While I think some of the criticism is valid, I feel that much of the hostility comes from the fact that Scott is brilliant con-man himself, getting us to feel certain emotions and connect with the story before pulling the rug from under our feet, landing us face-down onto the floor.While those who never grew up on those impossible Encyclopedia Brown novels will find this experience frustrating, one, such as myself, is astounded that I simply didn’t see it coming.
Paris, Je T'aime
Directed by: Tom Tykwer, Joel and Ethan Coen, Alfonzo Cuaron, Gus Van Sant, Wes Craven, and many others
Starring: Natalie Portman, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Steve Buscemi, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Elijah Wood, Rufus Sewell, Nick Nolte, and many more
Rated: R for language and brief drug use
Love is such a complex and powerful feeling and action; no matter how many songs, plays, or movies we see where love is the focus, there’s always a new and unique interpretation of it’s power and abilities.And what better way to showcase this than with short films on love that are all located in the city of love itself: Paris.The film of short films, entitled Paris, Je T’aime, focuses on just that: interpretations of love. Acclaimed filmmakers from across the globe, such as Tom Tykwer, Joel and Ethan Coen, Alfonzo Cuaron, Gus Van Sant, Wes Craven, and many others all travel to Paris to show us stories of heartbreak, grief, undying love, reignited passions, and love at first sight, forming a perfect blend of stories and styles.Obviously, I didn’t care for every story told, but each seemed to accent the movie as a whole, like watching an anthology of films on love.Perhaps this is a crazy prediction, but I believe the short film is powerful genre that could revolutionize film in the future.Thanks to avenues of distribution like iTunes and Youtube, the short film may once again capture America’s heart in ways that features can not.After watching Paris, Je T’aime, I hope I’m right.
(As a postscript, my favorites were: Nobuhiro Suwa’s "Place des Victoires", Isabel Coixet’s "Bastille", and Alfonso Cuarón’s "Parc Monceau".I didn’t care for Vincenzo Natali’s "Quartier de la Madeleine" at all.)
