When asked how she has kept up a ruse among Nazis in Morocco, Marion Cotillard’s Resistance agent Marianne Beauséjour offers one trick of the trade: keep the emotions real. Precision is important – and she has plenty – but the feeling matters most.
In “Allied,” director Robert Zemeckis might not be trying anything nearly as daring as the espionage mission undertaken by Marianne and her Canadian companion, Brad Pitt’s Max Vatan, yet he heeds that core dictum all the same. His Old Hollywood throwback is a classically styled delight that succeeds largely on the dynamism of the two stars. Their transition from partners in crime to partners in life is gradual, then sudden, and it works because Zemeckis creates an environment where a series of sparks can believably ignite a blaze.
The golden-age romance turns on a dime in the film’s second half when British intelligence officers inform Max of their belief that Marianne is, in fact, passing classified information back to the Nazis. At this point, “Allied” shifts registers into an old-fashioned thriller; Zemeckis masterfully deploys his craftsmanship here. Small sonic details become searing motifs that comment on the tension ratcheting up between the couple. Brisk cuts sweep us from one scene into the next, echoing the whiplash Max must feel. In both themes and content, the film feels like it shares a close kinship with Hitchcock’s early American work in the 1940s. Read the rest of this entry »
The central conceit of Tarsem Singh’s “Self/Less” is effortlessly appealing, if not incredibly novel. A new technological breakthrough allows for the transfer of a nimble mind from a decaying body into a more spry figure. As Matthew Goode’s well-coiffed scientist Albright puts it, think of what Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, or Steve Jobs could have accomplished with a few more years.
The man who receives this revolutionary soul transplant seems to share little in common with those three luminaries, though. Ben Kingsley’s Damian Hale simply amassed a fortune as a real estate baron. When he sheds his cancer-addled body and reemerges in the toned physique of Ryan Reynolds, Damian uses the new lease on life not to help humanity but rather to please himself. In pursuit of nothing but hedonism, he beds plenty of women and never once shows why he deserves an extension of his time on earth.
Beyond Damian’s clear lack of merit to receive the shedding treatment, “Self/Less” suffers from plot holes and shallow thinking aplenty. Writers David and Alex Pastor do add in a few complications to the concept, mostly resulting from the incomplete erasure of the mind that used to inhabit Damian’s new frame. (Side note: Why not just clone these new bodily vessels?) The ethical questions surrounding who really owns a physical body or a life are fascinating ones indeed…
…that will have to be answered by another movie, because “Self/Less” would much rather just cut to a mindless car chase than linger on a mindful discussion. The Pastor brothers placed their fingers on a topic that could inspire meaningful, relevant debate. Perhaps if they were able to complete two or three more drafts of the screenplay, they might have stumbled on something really profound. But as is, the potential for a great movie gets squandered to produce a merely passable one. C+ /
When I left “Stoker,” I was not entirely sure whether I liked or loathed it. The sentiment was distinct from the normal ambivalence that I feel about rather bland, unremarkable films. Rarely had such conflicting emotions about a work of art seemed so passionless to me.
Chan-wook Park’s English-language debut certainly has a cool neo-Hitchcock vibe to it, particularly in its impressive editing and heavy dependence on atmosphere. Very little happens in “Stoker,” which revolves around an odd teenager India Stoker (Mia Wasikowska), once her uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) moves in to “comfort” her recently widowed mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman). They interact in cryptic ways, which are often so vague that only the language of the camera gives any clue as to what to make of it.
At first, this indistinctness is chillingly beguiling. But after a while, “Stoker” just starts to feel like a bunch of smoke and mirrors. I had no idea where the movie was going until the last 30 minutes, largely because it lacked a firm narrative. And when there is little story to follow, all attention shifts to aesthetics. With all that extra attention, Park’s style reveals itself as rather empty.
Perhaps “Stoker” can approximate a Hitchcock thriller in terms of finesse. But Hitch had compassion for his characters, which is such a crucial X factor that has led his work to retain such a foothold in the public imagination. Park, on the other hand, builds such a distance between us and the characters that I found myself retreating into my own imagination to think about the next movie on my agenda. B- /
As if the subject of “The Imitation Game” – a tender British soul misunderstood as an incompetent and bumbling fool – weren’t enough to draw comparisons to “The King’s Speech,” the film seemingly invites the parallel in its opening credits. It’s only faintly discernible, but audio from none other than King George’s climactic speech at the dawn of World War II plays diegetically in the background.
To those who might recognize the snippet, it serves as a perfect barometer for the ambitions of “The Imitation Game.” With maybe a dash of brash mathematical genius of “A Beautiful Mind,” Morten Tyldum’s film is very much this year’s “The King’s Speech.” For those unaware of the construed meaning of 2010’s Academy Award winner for Best Picture, that means the film is an engaging and entertaining biopic made with high production values all around yet does not aspire to anything groundbreaking.
Maybe I can only give such an unabashed endorsement of the film from my privileged subject position of being one of the first audiences to see the film or because I saw it before the glut of prestige films later in the fall. Indeed, I can already see myself holding truly great movies against “The Imitation Game” and wondering how on earth anyone could think so highly of it. At least for the moment, however, I choose to see the film as it is: a quality piece of cinema that is not trying to reinvent the wheel. It’s simply trying to turn some wheels in my head, and I thoroughly enjoyed it on those terms.
Certainly a film has some merit if it can collapse a two-hour act of viewing into feeling like an experience lasting half that duration. “The Imitation Game” flew by, largely because of how engrossed in the story and the characters I became. Benedict Cumberbatch turns in inspired work bringing the film’s subject, Alan Turing, to life. His performance alone is worth the price of admission.
“Costume design porn” (if that’s not a phrase yet, I call dibs on the trademark) rarely satisfies for me, but I’ll admit, “Belle” came as a pleasant surprise. Amma Asante’s 18th-century set period piece focuses far less on the threads and refreshingly more on social values of the period in England. And for once, I felt like I should care far more about what the characters had to say than what they wore.
Perhaps my interest in the film’s subject came from having visited Kenwood House in London, the film’s setting. I spent one beautifully foggy morning exploring the newly refurbished historical site while it was nearly empty, and one particularly kind docent took the time to explain the history behind Dido Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw), the mixed race daughter of an English aristocrat. Dido is brought up just like any other legitimate child by her aunt (Emily Watson) and uncle (Tom Wilkinson), who is tasked with deciding a landmark case of the rights of slaves.
Ironically, her cousin Lady Elizabeth (Sarah Gadon) has far more power and standing in British society … yet far less of a dowry to offer suitors. A rivalry develops between the two that feels completely believable, and the tension propels “Belle” throughout some dull moments in the middle of the film.
Assante’s film has its heart in the right place, promoting causes like racial equality and the rights of women as self-sufficient individuals. She gets a little self-righteous and preachy at times, but at least these struggles ground the world in reality as opposed to the first-world problems that seem to occupy most films of this genre. Sadly enough, these are battles still being fought, and “Belle” reminds us that we’ve still got some distance to go even though we’ve progressed from the times being covered in the movie. B /
Why does anyone still bother to see romantic comedies? Look at the poster for “Leap Year” and guess how it ends; the genre has become so formulaic that my previous statement can’t even be branded a spoiler. So why is it that they are still made, and why is it that anyone still wants to see them?
Simply put, it’s because actresses like Amy Adams take roles in romantic comedies that the audiences come in droves. So you really need me to go into the plot? Or the production values? If you truly want to see this movie, it’s almost a guarantee what you really want to see is Amy Adams.
So do you want me to waste both my time and yours by reviewing “Leap Year?” In a sentence, it’s a stale rehash of all the romantic comedy cliches we’ve come to love and hate. But the movie isn’t a total waste of time because of all the charm Amy Adams breathes into it. As Anna, the girl so desperate to get married that she’s willing to travel in dismal conditions to propose to her boyfriend, she manages to turn someone with traits we would generally despise into a character we can actually like. That’s no small feat.
She doesn’t really get to be funny or sexy, two things you can be very little of in a movie that’s rated PG. But that girl-next-door sensibility and smile as wide as a mountain range are present, and they somehow make the corny plot more digestible.
If you decide to watch “Leap Year,” you won’t get anything you can’t get from any other romantic comedy. You’ll wind up feeling about as warm as you do looking at the poster, watching the trailer, or reading a plot synopsis. But you will get a big portion of jubilant Amy Adams, and that’s enough to make 100 minutes of banalities feel a little less dusty. B- /
The protagonist of “A Single Man,” George Falconer (Colin Firth), often references moments of clarity, in which he is able to forget the pain of his past and live in the present. Director Tom Ford does an excellent job of highlighting these moments, and it is here where his first film absolutely glitters. He has made a movie that stands as one of the most thoroughly beautiful aesthetic achievements in years. And it isn’t beautiful just to be beautiful – Ford uses all these elements to subtly alert us to the true mood of the scene, but it’s never so subtle that the message is unattainable.
Set against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the film’s events take place on what very well could be the last day of George Falconer’s life. He has had to mourn the death of his longtime lover Jim (Matthew Goode) in private, thus making him a ticking time bomb of grief, ready to self-destruct at any instant. George passes through life as little more than a specter, a mere shadow of the charismatic man that once walked in the same loafers. On this day, no one even seems to suspect anything out of the ordinary.
We follow George as he meticulously attempts to finish his business. He teaches his english class to a largely insipid and bored college class – with the exception of Kenny (Nicholas Hoult), who seems to take an interest not only in the thematic relevance of the class to the real world, but also in George himself. He has dinner with his old friend Charley (Julianne Moore), a woman with a high capacity for alcohol and heartbreak. Yet in the midst of all this, life (or some might call it fate) keeps giving him reminders of why we live. These fleeting instances of rapture are brilliantly captured by Ford’s lens, and they especially stand out against the bleak canvas of George’s life.
January is always an interesting month at the movies. It is usually filled with trash, so it is usually best spent making sure you see everything that came out in December. With this post, I hope to steer you away from what I perceive to be the month’s garbage and towards what could be a surprise hit.
January 8
Is it just me or does the trailer do all the explanation and then some for “Leap Year?” Amy Adams will be welcome face in barren January, and if there is a breakout hit in this month, my bet is on this.
Wait – Michael Cera and teen angst? Never seen this before! So excited for “Youth in Revolt” that I can barely see straight!
And just in case the latest vampire movie has left your local theater by January, Hollywood has “Daybreakers” for you. This seems to have a lot less shirtlessness and a lot more blood and gore, so that might limit its appeal a tad.
January 15
“The Book of Eli” will provide the answer to a question that has me curious: how much apocalypse can moviegoers take? 2009 saw “2012,” “Knowing,” and “Zombieland,” just to name a few. This looks like a more mainstream, BA-version of “The Road.” Denzel Washington is a star that all respect, but “The Taking of Pelham 123” in June 2009 showed that he can’t always draw in a large audience. Will this be the movie to get him back on track?
Well, December is finally here! Bring on the Oscar movies … and plenty of other fun movies!
There was another pretty good turnout for this poll. In a tie for second place were “The Princess and the Frog,” “Avatar,” “It’s Complicated,” and “Invictus.” Unfortunately, the runners-up get nothing except a link to their trailers.
There was also a tie for first place. Rather than prominently feature “Up in the Air” for the third time, I decided to spread the wealth. So the winner, and the readers’ of “Marshall and the Movies” most anticipated movie of December 2009 is…
Today’s “Oscar Moment” is brought to you by the movie “A Single Man,” adapted from a decades-old novel by Christopher Isherwood (if that sounds like the closing of “Sesame Street,” excuse my tardiness of honoring the show’s 40th anniversary). The movie could follow a similar awards season road to “Slumdog Millionaire.” Both were discovered at film festivals, got a distributor, and began attracting much Oscar talk. “A Single Man” burst onto the scene at the Venice Film Festival, where Colin Firth took home the prize for Best Actor. He has since become a frontrunner in the Best Actor race at the Oscars. But Firth is not the only part of the movie getting attention. Julianne Moore has gained some traction in a tight Best Supporting Actress race, and Tom Ford, former fashion designer (something I know only from a quick Google search), has won raves for his first film.
From watching the trailer, after the shock of watching a montage filled with Ford’s distinct, visually arresting style, you probably are asking, “This looks good, but what is this movie about?” The movie centers around middle-aged homosexual British professor George Falconer (Firth) and him reeling from the death of his partner, Jim (Matthew Goode, “Watchmen”). It follows him over the course of a day, consoled by close friend Charley (Moore), as he tries to discover if life is worth living without Jim.
It is a tight Best Actor field this year, with heavyweights such as Morgan Freeman, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Jeff Bridges in contention. Yet most people seem to think that Firth is safe for at least a nomination. He is a likable actor, never demanding much attention, and making missteps in only the quietest of fashions. Although many people seem to have postulated that the Academy is very homophobic from its snub of “Brokeback Mountain,” the Best Actor prize went to Sean Penn for playing homosexual San Francisco mayor Harvey Milk last year.
Moore perhaps faces even stiffer competition in Best Supporting Actress. Mo’Nique is a lock (which I can now testify to from seeing the movie). Barring a complete flop of “Nine,” at least one actress will get in, if not two. “Up in the Air” has two strong candidates in the category, Anna Kendrick and Vera Farmiga. “The Lovely Bones” could also has two potential nominees with past winners Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon. I don’t think Moore is a certainty by any means, but I must keep in mind that I have not seen her performance in the movie. But she is a four-time nominee, and maybe it is her time. We all know how desperate the Academy was to award Kate Winslet last year after five times coming up empty on Oscar night, even willing to commit category fraud to give it to her.
As for the Best Picture/Director duo, it seems to be less likely than the two actors. The film’s subject matter could likely hurt it – I say this not because of my own personal beliefs but because there exists a large faction of old white men in the Academy opposed to homosexuality. I think the triumph of “Milk” last year shows significant progress, but nonetheless, this homophobia still exists, even if in vestiges. Without the expansion of the field of Best Picture nominees, I don’t think this would have a chance. But I think “A Single Man” lurks at the bottom of the ten or just outside of it. If one of the heavyweights like “Invictus” or “The Lovely Bones” underwhelms, I think “A Single Man” could sneak in and steal a spot. As for director Tom Ford, I am quite skeptical about his chances. While the trailer shows an appealing stylistic approach, this cannot cover the fact that this is Ford’s first film. It is fairly rare for a director to earn a nomination for their first project, and in such a strong year for directors, I think Ford will get lost in a crowd of big names like Clint Eastwood, Peter Jackson, and James Cameron.
I feel like I close every “Oscar Moment” on the same note: “I don’t care if it gets nominated, this looks good enough to get me to a theater!” The same goes for “A Single Man,” which opens in limited release on December 11 and will gradually expand across the country as awards season progresses.
BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor (Colin Firth), Best Supporting Actress (Moore), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction
OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director (Tom Ford)
The “F.I.L.M.” (gentle reminder: the acronym stands for “First-Class Independent Little-Known Movie”) of the Week is “The Lookout.” Released in 2007, the movie flew under the radar of most moviegoers. But with the movie’s star, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, now being hailed as the new Heath Ledger, perhaps there is no better time than the present to check out one of his hidden gems. The movie is a spellbinding crime drama on the surface, but if you dig deeper, you will find that there is much more than meets the eye. The film finds a quiet strength in Gordon-Levitt’s Chris, affected by short-term memory loss after a car crash that killed his friends, just trying to find a way to contribute to the world. But his mental incapacitation makes it hard for him to do even the simplest of things, and he writes down his routine in a notebook.
Chris’ position as the night cleaner at a small-town bank attracts the attention of a gang of bank robbers who intend to exploit his shortcomings in order to get the money. Led by the smooth Gary (Matthew Goode, “Watchmen”), the gang is able to coax Chris into helping, mainly through the strategic use of Luvlee (Isla Fisher, “Wedding Crashers”). But Chris’ blind roommate, Lewis (Jeff Daniels), provides a foil for the gang. He has street smarts and can see right through the gang. And as time goes on, Chris begins to realize what Lewis can so clearly see. The result is a wild and unpredictable third act, which excites and thrills.
I could speak volumes on Gordon-Levitt’s delicate performance, but I should let the movie speak for itself. It is a refreshing take on the crime thriller, ranking up with “Inside Man” and possibly even close to “Reservoir Dogs.” It is a very plot-driven movie, but “The Lookout” takes equally as much of its strength from the powerful performances of Gordon-Levitt and Daniels. But now, it is time for me to stop writing and let the movie speak for itself. Go give it a spin; you won’t be disappointed.
Today’s “Oscar Moment” is brought to you by the movie “A Single Man,” adapted from a decades-old novel by Christopher Isherwood (if that sounds like the closing of “Sesame Street,” excuse my tardiness of honoring the show’s 40th anniversary). The movie could follow a similar awards season road to “Slumdog Millionaire.” Both were discovered at film festivals, got a distributor, and began attracting much Oscar talk. “A Single Man” burst onto the scene at the Venice Film Festival, where Colin Firth took home the prize for Best Actor. He has since become a frontrunner in the Best Actor race at the Oscars. But Firth is not the only part of the movie getting attention. Julianne Moore has gained some traction in a tight Best Supporting Actress race, and Tom Ford, former fashion designer (something I know only from a quick Google search), has won raves for his first film.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments