Across the Universe

I have so much to say about this film that I feel as thought I should start with simplicity before I got lost in my thoughts.

Across the Universe = a brilliant mess.

I've read several of the reviews and they are all over the place, but one thing they seem to have in commom, both the good and bad, is that this is a message film or an anti war film. This is interesting to me because I see it completely differently.

This is a film about several confused, scared and isolated characters looking to discover themselves by running away to the centre of the universe (New York City). Each character is going through a different personal struggle and a struggle for identity and they think that the answers are as far away from home as possible. New York has always been the backdrop for the pursuit of dreams and happiness but the reality is wh often actually see NY depicted as the place where dreams don't come true but where people make important discoveries about themselves, which perhaps is the dream on a subconcious level - or at least the reality.

It isn't until these characters are thrust from their complacent and comfortable existence (at least waht THEY perceive and comfortable and WE perceive as complacent) that they actually make any real discoveries about themselves, their friends and their reality.

Clearly this movie was a bold, adventurous concept that had a group of people who were all on the same page working their asses off to make it work. The problem is the concept was too big, it was more than they could handle and I think a little overly egotistical. The filmmakers, to me, seemed to think that anything they came up with regardless of how well it connected to its audience or the film itself would work. It also came across as though they could never settle on a tone or idea so decided that they would attempt them all. Some songs were brililantly staged and choreographed and some looked as though the actors we given zero direction and told to go at it.

This was a film of brilliant moments, disasterous moments, but ultimately suffered the same fate as the jukebox musical, it was great music strung together in inconceivable ways that made little sense simply to ensure their inclusion in the film. I think what may have been more effective would be to have had the Beatles music as a backdrop for the film, and have it establish tone rather than be so much at the forefront.

Julie Taymor's famous/infamous design concepts were in play here, but came at awkward times and distracted from the film. "I Want You" was a number is which her strengths shone bright, but moments like "I Am the Walrus" and the number right after failed miserably. I think that with such bold design choices you need to stick with it and keep it consistent throughout the picture or leave it out completely. It's hard for a "non-artsy" audience to accept the surreal and fantastical when it only pops up occasionally and out of context.

The music was awful. NOT THE BEATLES, but when you take classic music and make new arrangements for cinematic/dramatic purposes they better better than the original, I don't mean to say that you could improve upon the classics, but you could make them fuller and more dynamic like Cirque did with Love.

I think everyone should see this film. I thought I would pick a side, but I am left divided. I think what I admire is the concept itself and the impression that this was a work of passion and risk - but the lack of execution and cohesiveness really burned me in this.

This WILL demand a second viewing. And I would be VERY curious to see the alternate cut.

2.5 out of 5.

The Kingdom

The reviews would have you believe that this was going to be yet another examle of a film that wanted to be more than what it was, at the truth is that walking in I was kind of expectng that, but I think this film acheived exactly what it intended to and it did it effectively.

I know some may scoff at my comparissons to this film and Syriana, but I think there are parrallels between the two worth considering.

Syriana, for most audiences, was an impossible film to sink their teeth into, because Syriana demanded a certain level of foreign policy knowledge before you even walk into the theatre. Not a basic understanding, but you have to have been properly educated on the subject of the US foreign policies with the Middle East or you had to be a CNN junkie. I conisder myself, at least to some extent, the latter, but I still had a difficult time with Syriana.

The Kingdom on the other hand, spent the opening credits not giving you the full meal deal, but they gave you enough to satisfy your needs. We got a basic but necessary overview of the US relationship with Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom was essentially trying to deliver the same message as Syriana, but delievering in such a way that a mainstream audiences would be able to connect.

Yes, sometimes this means flaws. It does sometimes come across as a really expensive version of a really good tv show (it doesn't help that Jennfier Garner, Jason Bateman and Jeremy Piven all star). But it had enough action and enough suspense I felt to at least keep us interested while it worked to get to the real point, which flawed or not, did not come until the last 5 seconds of the film. Was it a waste of time to deliever the message. I don't think so. It was one of the moments where you kind of want to role your eyes and say "Obviously, like i didn't see THAT coming" and some may even shrug this off as mindless and pretentious in some ways. But the truth is, that is the reality. That is the problem.

Syriana wanted us to understand that the US is just as much a part of terrorism as their middle eastern counterparts. That because of our dependency on their country we will always maintain this toxic and unhealthy relationship no matter how potentially devestating the concequences. It wanted us to understand that even when bad things happen to their own people, they aren't really that interested is solving it or making it better, but about covering it up. The Kingdom said all the same things, they just did it with Jamie Fox, some dumb laughs, lots of guns and shittier dialogue. But ultimately, we walk away with that same message, but sadly or not, we are more willing to accept it and understand it with the guns and shitty dialogue.

The Kingdom is flawed, but it made efforts to cinematically be creative with handheld camera and zoom on the fly to make an attempt to put us into the action instead of being a bystander, with I thought was really a great choice, as the theme seemed to be we can't be satisfied with being a bystander when our brothers are in trouble, we need to get dirty to make a difference. I thought that while the performances were generic and recycled, they worked within the context of the film and enviroment in which they were thrust. And I'm glad that it didn;t want to focus so heavily on the politics because that's where the film would have died as it was not the right mix of talent ot deliver that message effectively.

You could go see Feast of Love this weekend....think about that.

3.5 out of five

Feast of Love

Remember in the 40's when composers and lyricists would get together and right a dozen or so good songs and then sit there and say - "How do we turn this into a musical"

What happens here is a writer, who clearly thinks he is more profound and prophetic than he really is, wrote down a dozen or so Hallmark lines and then must have said to himself "How do I make a movie out of this"

I have to admit the premise sounded interesting enough. A crop of people, seemingly connected to one another, each stronger to find love and identity within love and we'd have God himself commentating on the action and even offering advice to these lonely hearts.

Yup, that might have made a good movie.

What we have instead is a group of dumb, glorified losers who can't learn from their mistakes regardless of how many opportunities they are given.

It's hard to feel anything for characters who are so unrealistic and who you want to slap over the head to many times.

Performances were wasted all over the place. Selma Blair, who I think is desperately lookingfor respect in diveristy is an absolutely pointless character, simply there to propel Greg Kinnear's character. Kinnear himself might as well have done is blindfolded (a gag wouldn't have hurt either). Kinnear is a respectable actor who has made some great choices of late, but it seems he was looking for another Little MIss Sunshine but missed the bullseye (I think he may have actually missed the board). The rest of the cast is made of of your typical starts of direct to DVD fare with the exception of Morgan Freeman, who actually turns in a reasonable performance in an impossibly mundane and contrived role.

The biggest problem was that this film made every attempt to be a little bit of everything and failed miserably at every turn. It wanted to be poignant, it wanted to be bold, it wanted to be quirky and it wanted to have a message. It was none of those things and the message was "be careful when you green light a crap script". It's an impossible task to have your audience feel anything when you don't devote enough time to any character or any story and then are forced to wrap it up in such a contrived way simply to wrap it up. It tells the audiences that you believe they are stupid enough to buy into it and it's offenisve enough to completely turn us off your film. Oh, and boobs won't fix those problems either.

I've certainly seen worse movies in the past year, but this one is different because it left me jaded. The other movies were bad, and knew it and tried to make the best of it. This movie tried to trick me into liking it. Didn' work.

1.5 out of 5

Stardust

Boasting a supporting cast with the likes of Michelle Pheiffer, Robert DeNiro, Peter O’toole and Ricky Gervais – I feel like Stardust made a glorious effort to be something it wasn’t.

Let me preface the rest of this review by stating that I didn’t dislike Stardust. In fact, I have to admit it was a real treat to see a big screen fairy tale (in the true sense) that wasn’t computer generated and that didn’t have a giant green ogre.

Stardust, like any big screen fairy tale, begins by establishing the characters, story and setting in such a way that it asks its audience to please sit back and enjoy the ride. This of course ought to be expected of the audience when they purchase their tickets, but none the less, it is the common courtesy of the filmmakers to take 10 minutes of running time to get things set up for us. Why bring up something that’s a given? Because in this first ten minutes it is also the responsibility of the filmmakers to set the tone for the film.

I really thought they did a nice job. They took me to an unknown land, there were witches, a love story with a princess and a mystery. It develops further into another love story in which a young lad (the son of the gentleman who sets up the story after breaking the village rules to cross a wall to a forbidden magical land, only to fall in love with a princess who can never be with who ends up having a baby who she then sends to the “real” world to live with the father as she has been imprisoned by a witch – suspension of disbelief people!) commits to bringing home a fallen star for his one true love. This is all fine and good – and even noble, to deliver a true fairy tale. However, the nobility of such a gesture was soon diminished.

After the setup, in which we believe we are in for a classic happily ever after story, the film seems to veer off track at times; poking fun at itself and falling into mainstream modern humor (including DeNiro as a gay pirate, which was funny for about two minutes, not sure whether it was actually funny or if I was laughing thinking about the person who pitched the idea to DeNiro – or the look on that person’s face when he said yes). It was as though the writer/filmmaker (Matthew Vaughn – Producer of Snatch and Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels) was afraid of his own sincerity in telling this story that he reverted to The Princess Bride formula, which I might add was done ONCE brilliantly and set an unreachable bar. Then when he realized that people might catch on to this fall back plan and make comparisons he could never live up to so he decided to throw in some of his own ridiculous humor and even cast Ricky Gervais to essentially play his character from The Office in an attempt to connect to a modern, mainstream movie audience. I have to admit, I laughed at some of these moments, but they stood out like a sore thumb and jolted the ride a little bit. It’s like when you hit turbulence, it’s a little rocky, but kinda exciting – but in end you’d probably have been more pleased without it. The strength of the movie comes when it stays within the tried, tested and true formula of the fairy tale. The white knight saving the princess from the witches, yadda, yadda, yadda. It’s not a worn formula – it’s pleasant. It’s reminds us of being a kid and believing in those ideas. That’s why fairy tales work. We don’t believe them, but we want to so badly that we almost do.

I’ve not gone into plot details because in a review and without the use of adjectives in brilliant fashion, of which I am not capable, the story would not be done justice. It would sound pretentious. The story, when on track, is a great one. It’s original without getting too far ahead of itself. None of the performances really stood out, which is actually a compliment. In a story like this, we’re not relying on great performances, we’re relying on great characters driven by a great story and everybody did their job buying into that idea. Which is why all the actors (which the exception of Pheiffer) mentioned above probably have no more than 10 minutes screen time each and our hero is virtually an unknown. We don’t want to know our hero because we want to see ourselves in his shoes. We want to be the hero. Claire Danes, though known, does a nice job reminaing understated, so that the female audience can slip into her shoes and become that fallen star and the hero’s once true love.

It’s too bad this movie was virtually left in the dust by audiences this summer, but to be fair, the trailer and marketing campaign made you believe this was going to be a hokey mess. It was not.

It’s probably hard to tell where I stand on this film. I enjoyed it. As I said, it was a noble effort and didn’t fall flat on its face. It was refreshing for the most part and something that I would recommend gets a DVD rental for those of you looking for light adventure and a little romance.

3 stars out of 5
This is my first review. They’ll get better.

Welcome

I must admit this was a decision that had been weighing on me for some time. I must admit also that this site is almost entirely inspired by a good friend of mine who has a site I think you should check out (http://www.jeremyandthemovies.blogspot.com/) - wonder where I got the name? I respect Jeremy's opinion on film as much as I would respect the more well known critics out there - but what I find most facinating about Jeremy's opinion on film, is not simply how diverse his choices are and his diverse appreciation of film, but that while we agree on many films, we also disagree, and both with I feel rather compelling arguments and comparrisons. Speaking of comparrisons, I smell and Ebert and Roeper feel coming along.

Keep in mind, Jeremy was not consulted before I began this blog and is in no way associated with it. And the truth is Jeremy will offer a far better library than I would. But feel free to check out Jeremy's blog and check out mine and see where each of us stands on a particular film.

My blog will focus on new theatrical releases I see, as I see them. Some on opening weekends, some later. I thought about going back to the summer as there were several notables I would love to share my opinion on, but I thought I would start fresh now.

I will also, once a month, have a "see this movie" blog where I will choose one film from my personal favorties and offer a review of sorts to encourage you to see it.

Ciao.

Matt