Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
7/30/08
When it rains...
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
7/27/08
7/17/08
7/15/08
Some sadness
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
7/14/08
7/12/08
The Self Destruction of Jerry Lundegaard
On of my favorite movies is the 1996 Coen Bros. classic, "Fargo". I was looking for a movie to watch this evening and smiled when my eyes scanned the spine of the DVD case.
There are a lot of things I like about this movie. The erratic speech pattern of Steve Buscemi. The slow but effective method of police work by Frances McDormand. The inherent meanness of the father-in-law. The subtle nuance of the score by Carter Burwell. Out of this entire masterpiece of a movie, I'd have to pin the atypical glee on the performance of William H Macy.
Macy's character is in deep...with someone, but we're never allowed to see into that part of Jerry's life. It's referenced several times in that he needs a large sum of money but that's as far as we know. He has several plans going to get the funds he needs, but they are all poorly executed and fall apart during the course of the film. He took out a huge loan on cars that don't exist...and GMAC calls to check up, knowing that something isn't right. He is trying to work a real estate deal, which his father-in-law takes from him. And, of course, he has his wife kidnapped, which goes extremely awry.
Macy plays uncomfortable so well. I love watching his argument with Margie (I'm cooperating here!) and seeing how many red flags I can find. Listening to him prepare to tell his father-in-law about the abduction (Aw, geez, it's Jean...) Trying to communicate with Steve Buscemi (the heck d'ya mean?) It's all wonderful to watch.
That, and he keeps on going forward. He does not give up or falter in his path even as the world crashes around him. Of course, this is to his ultimate humiliating demise, but whatev.
There are a lot of things I like about this movie. The erratic speech pattern of Steve Buscemi. The slow but effective method of police work by Frances McDormand. The inherent meanness of the father-in-law. The subtle nuance of the score by Carter Burwell. Out of this entire masterpiece of a movie, I'd have to pin the atypical glee on the performance of William H Macy.
Macy's character is in deep...with someone, but we're never allowed to see into that part of Jerry's life. It's referenced several times in that he needs a large sum of money but that's as far as we know. He has several plans going to get the funds he needs, but they are all poorly executed and fall apart during the course of the film. He took out a huge loan on cars that don't exist...and GMAC calls to check up, knowing that something isn't right. He is trying to work a real estate deal, which his father-in-law takes from him. And, of course, he has his wife kidnapped, which goes extremely awry.
Macy plays uncomfortable so well. I love watching his argument with Margie (I'm cooperating here!) and seeing how many red flags I can find. Listening to him prepare to tell his father-in-law about the abduction (Aw, geez, it's Jean...) Trying to communicate with Steve Buscemi (the heck d'ya mean?) It's all wonderful to watch.
That, and he keeps on going forward. He does not give up or falter in his path even as the world crashes around him. Of course, this is to his ultimate humiliating demise, but whatev.
7/2/08
Movie Review x 2
Wall-E
I've been a fan of Pixar since the original Toy Story. Technically, I've been a fan since Superman (1978) as they were responsible for the eye-popping credit sequence. But I've enjoyed their films so far, all being good, some being great, a few being absolute masterpieces. Wall-E falls squarely in the latter category.
Wall-E is a marvel of technical achievement. It is also a marvel of modern storytelling. With a minimal amount of dialogue, you relate to and love these characters. The magic of Ben Burtt's sound design (he designed R2-D2) brings this world to life. I had tears in my eyes throughout the whole film; sometimes out of appreciation of beauty, and other times out of raw emotion. I can't give this movie high enough praise.
Hancock
Now this was a high disappointment. I can deal with bad movies. For example, The Musketeer (2001) was a BAD movie. First time I recall actually burning my ticket upon my exit from the theater. Bowling-shoe ugly, it is. (House of Ladders? Really?) Anyway...Hancock is not a BAD movie...but it hurts because it could've been so GOOD, and it ended up being mediocre. Will Smith does a fantastic job with his acting, but the story itself is the product of many rewrites and it shows. Things are disjointed and there are moments where the movie doesn't even play by it's own rules. I wanted to love this, and did until about 2/3 through. It fell flat for me.
Hancock is probably going to play very well to the National Treasure/Mummy fanbase, but since I hold myself as somewhat of a movie snob (I don't think I can ignore that anymore) I can't recommend it as anything but a mindless summer film. What's terrible is that the first half of the movie brings you OUT of that expectation and into something greater...only to go back to it.
I've been a fan of Pixar since the original Toy Story. Technically, I've been a fan since Superman (1978) as they were responsible for the eye-popping credit sequence. But I've enjoyed their films so far, all being good, some being great, a few being absolute masterpieces. Wall-E falls squarely in the latter category.
Wall-E is a marvel of technical achievement. It is also a marvel of modern storytelling. With a minimal amount of dialogue, you relate to and love these characters. The magic of Ben Burtt's sound design (he designed R2-D2) brings this world to life. I had tears in my eyes throughout the whole film; sometimes out of appreciation of beauty, and other times out of raw emotion. I can't give this movie high enough praise.
Hancock
Now this was a high disappointment. I can deal with bad movies. For example, The Musketeer (2001) was a BAD movie. First time I recall actually burning my ticket upon my exit from the theater. Bowling-shoe ugly, it is. (House of Ladders? Really?) Anyway...Hancock is not a BAD movie...but it hurts because it could've been so GOOD, and it ended up being mediocre. Will Smith does a fantastic job with his acting, but the story itself is the product of many rewrites and it shows. Things are disjointed and there are moments where the movie doesn't even play by it's own rules. I wanted to love this, and did until about 2/3 through. It fell flat for me.
Hancock is probably going to play very well to the National Treasure/Mummy fanbase, but since I hold myself as somewhat of a movie snob (I don't think I can ignore that anymore) I can't recommend it as anything but a mindless summer film. What's terrible is that the first half of the movie brings you OUT of that expectation and into something greater...only to go back to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)