Showing posts with label Rachel Weisz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rachel Weisz. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Just watched...

...a haphazard double bill of "The Lobster" and "The Nice Guys."

When I flew back from Maui, my plane had a nice in-flight selection of films to choose from and since one is basically held hostage while traveling by air, I thought I'd catch up on some films I'd been meaning to see. The first one that caught my eye was a film that made a splash at last year's 2015 Cannes Film Festival: "The Lobster."


Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos and written by Lanthimos with Efthymis Filippou, the story concerns itself with a near-future society obsessed with the state of being a couple. If one is single--or worse, if one finds oneself single because your partner has either left you or perhaps died, one is given 45 days to find another suitable mate or be turned into an animal. The premise sounds quite Kafka-esque and the film certainly is a highly surreal allegory. Most reviews and film journalists refer to "The Lobster" as a hilarious black-comedy, but I want to disabuse them of this notion. While there were some black-comedy moments and a kind of off-kilter bemusement arising from the bizarre premise itself, on the whole the film reads like an absolute nightmare. The amount of malice and cruelty exhibited in this film was cumulative and weighed on me heavily by the end of the story. The completely flat, naïve affect of the cast--headed beautifully by Colin Farrell and Rachel Weisz--makes the characters seem like children caught up in some kind of horrible ritual...no one is able to help themselves from either becoming a victim or abusing victims. And the clear, dispassionate cinematography helps this feeling along while the overwrought, staccato string quartet soundtrack hacks and saws away at our nerves and emotions.

Also of note is the effective dream logic at work--never once is it explained how people are turned into animals and I liked that. This is a fairy tale and magical things are taken for granted in such tales.

While the story description says it takes place in a "near future," I felt it took place in an alternate reality, right next to our own, in a colorless approximation of Soviet-era or Eastern bloc grimness. There was nothing in it that suggested a time any different from ours. Being an allegory, it naturally has a lot to say about our own culture which places so much emphasis on being in a relationship, but I feel there is a much bigger issue at play: it begs the question of how people can travel to such extreme poles in their psyches and how they can grant power to arbitrary, superficial structures instead of their own souls. If one looks at our current frightening election cycle here in the United States, we can witness how such a thing happens, and it happens through fear.




Recommend? I am truly torn about this one. It is a skillfully made film. All elements work well and it is a relevant, powerful statement. But the depths it explores might hurt.

And now, as Monty Python used to say, for something completely different. Since I had some more time to kill on the flight, I hopped over to a film that was released this past spring, 2016, "The Nice Guys."


Set in 1970s Los Angeles, a vigilante-for-hire (Russell Crowe) and a struggling private investigator (Ryan Gosling) team up to solve a mystery and a handful of murders that happen along the way. This comedy was savaged by some critics but I found it amusing. A predictable story and some hackneyed characters are saved by some zippy dialogue (some of which was improvised by Gosling and Crowe)  and Gosling's excellent comedic timing: the film plays like a cross between an Abbot and Costello classic and something like "Chinatown" or "L.A. Confidential" (which were films deliberately evoking classic noir thrillers like "The Big Sleep"). In fact, Gosling gets to do a marvelous scene that is nearly a frame-for-frame and wheeze-for-wheeze copy of something Lou Costello did in the 40s.




Recommend? Sure, it's a fun and funny romp. And Gosling really is great.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Just watched...

..."Oz, The Great and Powerful" with James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, and Rachel Weisz.


I went to this film hopeful, full of nostalgia, and with childhood memories of watching "The Wizard of Oz" on television. I was hopeful that it would not be one of those dreadful "modern re-tellings" of classic fairy tales that have vexed us of late, unnecessary films like "Red Riding Hood" and "Snow White and the Huntsman." Of course what kills these modern re-tellings is the "tween-ization" of perfectly good material. Note to producers and directors: we do not need the Brothers Grimm put through a "Twilight Saga" filter. Stop it. Just don't.

So I was more than pleasantly surprised to see that this was not a "re-telling" or a "re-boot" or a "re-anything." It is technically a prequel, but done in a way that is completely faithful to the lore of the original story. It retains a colorful lightness that is totally lost in the other current fairy tale "re-tellings." We get references to characters and places we know very well through the 1939 film version. We even get to see Munchkins! And more importantly, we get to see events unfold that lay the foundation for what happens in the '39 film. I found it very fun, very satisfying, and a bit sad that things turned out the way they did. It makes complete sense, but it left me sad for all parties involved since things did not have to take an ugly turn. But it has to be, since the '39 film version shows us the second chapter, the foundations of which are built for us here in this charming, modern prequel.

The art direction is perfect. The Yellow Brick Road looks exactly how it should along with the Emerald City and a host of familiar places and characters. The trio of women (Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, and Rachel Weisz) were lovely and never step into cartoon territory. My only small quibble is with the casting of The Wizard himself. Now, I want to preface this by saying I like James Franco. I really do. I think he is a very good actor. But I feel he is a very 21st century actor, very contemporary... he plays a good stoner, he was marvelous in "127 Hours" but here, in something that requires a kind of classical quality, a kind of timeless manner, he just doesn't fit. He was fine, he made no mis-steps. But I can't help but think that the role needed someone a little...oh, a little more 1939... does that make sense?

Recommend? Oh, yes. It is all great fun!

http://disney.go.com/thewizard/