Wifey's Chick Flick of the Week- Dear John

Dear John is the latest Nicholas Sparks romance novel turned movie.  It is touted as being up there with other Sparks book to movie classics such as The Notebook, but I’m going to go ahead and burst that bubble for you right now and let you know it is not The Notebook, not even close, really.  While the film shows flashes of that “Notebook” magic, overall, there were too many story hurdles (more like mountains) that simply were not overcome.

The biggest problem the film has is its premise (kind of hard to write or shoot a great film when the idea itself poses huge problems).  The story focuses on a couple that falls madly in love over the span of a two week Spring break and then must part ways for a year, with John (Channing Tatum) going overseas with the Army and Savannah (Amanda Seyfried) going back to college. However, they vow to stay together by writing each other letters back and forth, hence the title.  Now, I’m sure the first thing you’ll want to point out is, “Who ever falls in love on Spring Break?” Yes, MTV Spring Break definitely elicits more images of binge drinking and drunken flashing than romance and love, but that’s not even the biggest issue with the premise.  The character development and relationship are driven forward through letters. Letters. What’s supposed to happen when they’re separated? We just cut back and forth to each of them reading letters? Not exactly an appealing film. 

Despite this glaring obstacle, the filmmakers actually do a pretty decent job of keeping the story moving through these months and years of separation.  They do what they must:  have montages of the two lovers living their separate lives and pining for each other.  In order to make the montages work, they force their way through the intro, planting set-ups such as the moon and coins to reap pay-offs later on.  The film also seems to manufacture the attraction between the two characters.  Nothing that actually happens when they’re together comes across as being special for the characters and neither of them really make a leap of faith to go after the other until about 20-25 minutes into the movie, right before they are about to separate.

Once they separate, though, the movie starts getting good, and you can start seeing that heart-warming “Notebook” magic sneaking up on you.  The film accomplishes this largely through smart (albeit unimaginative) directing and great acting by Seyfried (she truly is a fantastic actress and I don’t know if the film even makes theaters with anyone else cast in her part). The direction is not groundbreaking, but it understands the story’s limitations and effectively navigates around them.  Overall, it’s fine except for two shots (really the same one at different parts of the story).  To simulate the disorientation of battle, the camera starts turning, flipping upside down, and moving in and out. It’s very discombobulating, but instead of drawing us in to the character’s perspective, it is so disorienting it takes us out of the film. Other than that, the direction’s okay for the most part (it misses some key shots), but does a good job of placing meaningful visuals with the voiced-over letters or scored montages (this entire sequence when they’re separated seems to be scored with the sappy, romantic music that builds a sense of longing: kind of obvious, but effective nonetheless).

At this point, about two-thirds into the movie, I was thinking, “Okay, this might just be good after all.”  However, that all came crashing down in an instant when the film’s major twist hits.  While this twist is, sadly, very realistic, I felt the film was so concerned with showing montages to get through the part in which all the two lovers really had was letters, that it didn’t properly develop the relationship or the characters to explain the twist.  This twist makes no sense based on what the film has shown us and the allowances it has asked us to give it (such as believing people will fall madly in love during a two week Spring Break in which they don’t do anything too special at all).  From there, it doesn’t really give us any insight into what either character feels or thinks about this twist until much later, and that explanation doesn’t satisfy.  The film then proceeds down a rather predictable, yet untrue to the characters, finish for the last ten minutes.  When it ends with the final resolve, my wife and I looked at each other and said, “Really?... that’s it?”

The film has some potential and for the middle third, it flashes what likely makes the novel great.  However, the forced introduction and unsatisfactory ending really make it not worth bothering.  I don’t doubt the novel is excellent, but in converting it to film you could just tell the filmmakers had to leave out huge chunks of very important story and character development.  That on top of a premise that is not action-driven at all, makes this a nearly impossible book to film conversion. While the filmmakers tried hard and probably did the best anyone could do, I still don’t think Dear John is a good movie, and there are plenty of better excuses (and movies) to use as a means to curl up on the couch with your significant other.

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting, if you're bored

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 2

If you like this, check out:  The Notebook (New Line Platinum Series) 

Buy Dear John

Nine

Before I get into my review of Nine, I want to express my prejudices going into the film and also tell you I did my best to disregard them at fade in as well as in writing this review.  I’m not a fan of musicals.  I’m also not a fan of theater being converted to the screen.  I believe there’s magic to theater. There’s a feeling of being present and physically experiencing a work of art as much as seeing it.  I grasped desperately for that magic in Nine, but, ultimately, I only came up with air as I simply did not feel the film.

This was not for a lack of trying by the filmmakers.  They assembled a superstar cast, including:  Daniel Day-Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Nicole Kidman, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren, Kate Hudson, Marion Cotillard, and, yes, even Fergie!  Simply witnessing this eclectic ensemble almost makes the film worth seeing on its own.  I mean, when was the last time you even saw Sophia Loren act? (I think she may be the female version of Benjamin Button, by the way, because I swear she looks younger than she did in Grumpier Old Men… yes, that’s a Grumpier Old Men reference.)  However, in spite of the collective talent assembled, I couldn’t say it was really cast well.  These actors are Hollywood stars, but only one of them is Italian (Loren) and many of them make no attempt to even sound it, which really detracts from a film about the world’s most famous Italian director trying to make a film entitled, “Italia”.  That aside, the acting is good. It’s not any of these actors’ best performance, though.  (I’ll accept an argument for Penelope Cruz or Marion Cotillard.)

To further the level of grandeur of the movie, Director Rob Marshall infuses a big Broadway production feel into the film.  He does so with some magnificent shots, whether it is great use of contrast between dark and light or simply well framed, well-timed close-ups.  Further, he does a great job of showing the creative process at work within his main character’s (Contini) head by orchestrating elaborate daydreams and fantasies.  However, this proves to be a double-edged sword for me as, in staying true to a stage, Broadway feel, much of the direction results in boring wide shots that leave you wondering, ‘if I’m just getting a wide shot, why shouldn’t I just see this on Broadway?’  It’s not necessarily bad direction, just the cost of trying to bring Broadway to the screen.

As you’d expect in a glitzy Broadway production, as well, the film has its fair share of big, elaborate song and dance performances.  All of them are excellent for their production value. I especially thought Marion Cotillard’s songs (“Take It All” and “My Husband Makes Movies”) were both powerful and beneficial to the story’s progress.  However, there were way too many songs and I felt many songs, while good, sounded the same and only served the purpose of expressing an individual character’s thoughts or feelings (thoughts or feelings that just as easily could have been expressed with a line of dialogue or even a look).  That, or it was another lark into one of Contini’s procrastination induced fantasies. Either way, the sheer number of songs lessened each individual song’s impact for its respective character.  By this I mean, it didn’t seem like the progress of the story drove the character to explode into a frenzy of passionate song because there were so many songs that we knew there’d be one about every five minutes regardless of what happens.  It made the songs feel manufactured within the context of the film and removed some of the film’s genuineness. 

Maybe it’s because there really isn’t much of a plot at all.  The plot literally consists of a famous director given a deadline of ten days to write a script and just procrastinating and daydreaming instead.  There is not much character development or change in the story at all.  Rather, the film relies on these big song and dances performances to infuse some sort of feeling into the characters and the film.  I didn’t really buy it.

Ultimately, I feel this film has something missing (or several things missing).  Maybe there are too many songs or the songs are too long.  Maybe there are some key shots missing or key plot points missing.  Whatever the case is, I found myself thinking, “this should be good”, but not feeling it was, and isn’t that the point of great theater?  Again, I must reiterate, this is not my preferred genre and, although I attempted to withhold any prejudices I have against it, my prejudices could have influenced my analysis. (I mean, they are prejudices, isn’t that what they do?) If you are a fan of musicals and theater (and aren’t diehard enough to scoff at seeing it on screen) I think you’ll enjoy this film because it is very well done, both visually and auditorily.  However, don’t pick this up and expect to be engrossed by the story.

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 3


If you like this, check out:  8 1/2 (Single Disc Edition)

Buy Nine

Wheez's Vintage Movie of the Week- Chinatown

In this series, a contributor, “The Wheez” (don’t ask about the origins of the name, no one really knows), suggests a vintage movie to be reviewed by yours truly.  These films are classics and shouldn’t be forgotten, so, hopefully, through this series you’ll remember some films you haven’t seen in decades or learn of some new classics to check out.  This week’s choice sets the gold standard for “who done it?” films:  Chinatown.  Starring Jack Nicholson and Faye Dunaway (both received Oscar nominations), this film follows a private eye who stumbles upon a city conspiracy involving millions of dollars and murder while investigating a claim of adultery.  It is extraordinary and reminds us that no level of technology or quick cuts can replace a clever, well-told story.

The first thing that struck me about this film as I sat down to watch it was its direction.  Say what you will about Roman Polanski and his personal life (if you don’t know what I’m talking about, go to any news site and you’ll probably see some headlines about it), but the man can use a camera!  As I watched, I marveled at how every shot, every frame is so carefully crafted to be visually interesting.  Polanski doesn’t throw away frames or use a shot as a means of getting from A to B. No, every shot seems to be calculated to please the eye like a good photograph.  Further, he is clever in setting up many of his shots, sometimes going minutes without needing a cut.  While this style does tend to slow the film down, it’s just so magnificent to witness that, frankly, I don’t care.

Undoubtedly, the excellent acting allows for these rather long shots that Polanski prefers.  Both Nicholson and Dunaway are so adept at telling a story with their face and eyes, that often, their close-ups are more interesting than anything Polanski could cut away to.  They both do a remarkable job and deliver performances that truly allow for Polanski’s style choices to be so effective.

Great acting and direction aside, though, this story truly elevates the film to the plateau it resides upon.  A habit of mine whenever I watch a film is to try to figure out the major turning points (or beats) and see if they follow the standard structure for screenwriting (many of them do, especially the newest films).  While this may sound unoriginal, it just reflects the fact that there are principles to good storytelling, but I digress. As I watched Chinatown, I tried to find these moments, but, there are so many turning points, so many twists, that I gave up about two-thirds of the way through (This isn’t to say it strays completely from the structure, just that it packs a lot of punch into each scene or beat).  It really is incredible how convoluted the story gets without completely losing the audience, which proves to be perfectly fitting in proving the theme that Gittes (Nicholson) states early in the film: “Sometimes it’s better to let sleeping dogs lie.”  As Gittes delves deeper into his investigation and uncovers more corruption, it often seems that all parties would have been better off if Gittes never even bothered.  This sense snowballs all the way to the end, which contains an excellent and fitting resolve.

As exciting as that story may sound, though, it’s not an edge-of-your-seat thriller (although, if it were made today, I’m sure it would be!).  Rather, Polanski focuses on good filmmaking and highlights the film’s great assets:  the screenplay and acting.  If it were made today, I conjecture there’d be at least twice as many cuts (maybe three or four times) and there would be more of a sense of foreboding infused into the film either through sound mixing (you know, good ole ominous tones) or story changes (and I really hope it would be through sound seeing as how this film won best original screenplay).  That being said, the technology used to make this film clearly isn’t on par with today’s technology and it is evident at times (but hardly noticeably). Anyway, it’s a vintage movie! Are you not going to drink a vintage port wine because the label’s outdated? (If not, please mail it to me. My address is…)  Along the same lines of the older technology, the film comes from a different era of filmmaking.  It has a slower pace (especially compared to films in its genre today) and doesn’t grip you through tricky editing.  However, as with most things, film and the mystery/thriller genre have evolved to become the fast-paced, intense beast it is today. Even if it were made today, though, I wouldn’t want to see it changed because that would mean changing Polanski’s direction, which truly is the work of an artist.

What many of today’s films lack, especially in the mystery/thriller genre, is the excellent, original story of Chinatown.  It truly is great filmmaking at its best and, that, in my humble opinion, cannot be replaced by any level of technology or modern editing. I highly recommend seeing this film, especially if you fancy yourself a bit of a film connoisseur.

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 4.5


If you like this, check out:  L.A. Confidential (Two-Disc Special Edition) or Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (Widescreen Edition)

Buy Chinatown (Special Collector's Edition)

2009 Best Film Nominee #1- Inglorious Basterds

I believe Inglorious Basterds is the best film of the 2000’s (kind of by default), one of the most poignant displays of the paradoxical American psyche towards war ever demonstrated through film, and also one of the cleverest screenplays ever written. (There, go crazy!)  It will be difficult to fully support all of these points without spoiling the film, but I promise to try.

I’m not a die-hard Tarantino fan, but I do appreciate his work and I also agree with his assessment that this is his masterpiece.  All the technical and production aspects are what you come to expect from a Tarantino film- excellent.  He writes characters better than anyone (maybe) and he delivers some bigger than life characters in this film as well, namely:  American Ltd. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) and German Col. Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). Landa delivers the best performance by a male actor of the year, hands down.  He should almost get it by default considering he spoke four languages in the film, but, on top of it, he delivers a performance that is both absurdly ridiculous and powerfully terrifying (I didn’t even know you could do that.).

All that aside, I want to get to why I make such bold assertions about this film… its story.  It’s a bit of a paradox that I love this story so much because it absolutely is not based in reality (where as I criticized several best picture nominees for straying from the realistic).  Much to the contrary, Tarantino boldly creates a fictional, alternate ending tale to World War II.  So, he gets a pass about the unrealistic parts because he intentionally falsifies them to prove a point (which he does so brilliantly, but I digress). Ironically, though, he also approaches a World War II film in a much truer sense than most other World War II films… the language.  The film explores the notion that the two sides fighting each other, for the most part, look the same and the only barrier preventing them from being totally indiscernible (other than uniforms) is language.  In the film, every character is true to his or her native tongue and, as the Americans and British try to infiltrate the German ranks, language proves to be a realistic barrier. (You know us, we hate speaking other languages and refuse to do so on principle [at least that’s my excuse]) So, I give it a pass on stretching reality because it’s intentionally fictional and yet it’s also truer than more factual World War II movies. It’s a paradox wrapped inside a paradox. (yay!)

What makes this story so clever, though, is the deception it pulls on us (the old one-two).  The entire film is presented as one thing: a fun, action-packed war movie about the good guys going after the bad guys, who revel in their success and propaganda as the story snowballs and gains momentum towards the predictable (based on history), but triumphant outcome.  On this premise and entertainment value alone, this is still a good movie, maybe even still deserving of an Oscar nod.  However, Tarantino pulls a twist on us in the end that is completely audacious and just blew me away.  It ripples through the film, affecting every character and also actually including the audience as an active member of the story.  That’s what gets me about this film.  It not only has a huge twist that is unexpected, brilliantly set up, and ripe with great payoffs, but that twist also alters (more like creates) the meaning of the film.  It flips the entire thing on its head, and, if you catch yourself during it and pay close attention to your emotions and, most importantly, your perspective, you’ll realize how Tarantino completely just played your emotions and revealed something about you and your nature that you may not have realized about yourself. (Hint: if you find yourself applauding or wanting to applaud, that’s it! That’s the moment!) Yes, that is a very bold statement, but I believe it to be true… and that’s why this film is so amazing.

In case you haven’t noticed yet, I really like this film and really think you should see it! Tarantino’s films can be incendiary and graphic, but this one actually stays pretty clean (for Tarantino standards) on both counts.  It’s far less graphic than any film he’s made since Jackie Brown, so even if you’re a bit squeamish I think you can find this enjoyable.  Also, if the above paragraph sounded like lunacy to you, don’t let it deter you from seeing the film.  I don’t think you need to get all the subtle, deeper meanings to enjoy it.  Tarantino, for the most part, makes exciting films full of great dialogue and great characters and, on pure entertainment value, it nears Pulp Fiction.  It also might cure the common cold, make doughnuts healthy, and pay off your student loans (I don’t care if you’re 45. You’re still paying them!).  (Have I left anything out? Any other hesitations you may have?... well, I can’t think of anything.) So go rent it!

Scale: 

1-  Lots of Better Movies at Blockbuster   

2-  Might Be Worth Renting

3-  Rent It When You Get to It

4-  A Must Rent, at some point

5-  Put It in Your Queue NOW!

My Rating: 5

Buy Inglourious Basterds (2-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray]