DRIVE 3.5****
Most of you remember Ryan Gosling for the 'The Notebook'. A lot of men and some women neglected his acting ability in that role.. But film by film,this young actor has impressed the hell out of m. And now we get to see what kind of chops he has when it comes to an action film. And believe .......he turns it into one of the coolest action movies I’ve seen in a while. It's not your basic shoot- em' up picture. It has this slight 'noire' edge to it that makes it shine much brighter than the rest.
The film stars Ryan Gosling as a man only known as the Driver. He has a job as a Hollywood stunt driver but moonlights as a getaway driver. He gives each robber team five minutes to get the heist done and if they are a second too late, he's gone and they are on their own. The opening of the film is quite impressive as it draws you in and shows how much of a professional the Driver can be. He's very much a loner, but he seems to have a pretty good relationship with Shannon, the owner of the mechanic shop where he works. The Driver soon meets Irene (Carey Mulligan), his neighbor who lives down the hall in his apartment building. She lives with her son and her husband is in prison, but is going to be released soon. Our hero gets more than he bargained for when the husband returns.
The performances are stellar. Gosling is fantastic as the Driver. He plays it calm and cool, with sudden bursts of violence when protecting the people he cares about. He doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but he pulls it off so well. And the one performance that really stands out from the supporting cast is Albert Brooks. He plays a crime boss who you really don't want to be on the bad side of. He's quite calm for most of the film, but when he gets violent, it's absolutely brutal.
Regarding the pace of the film. some may call it slow, whereas I call it hypnotic. The lead played by Gosling, is a cold and quiet fellow who barely even speaks, blinks, or give any reference to his emotions. But as the film rolls on, Gosling's character becomes a more vibrant. And by that, I mean more violent. It's not the kind of violence you expect. It’s the subtle yet explosive kind that catches you by surprise. And then the movie does nothing but climb higher and higher with its level of intensity. It takes this stone cold character, and molds him into one cool ass dude
. The cinematography is fantastic, the musical score is hip and awesome, and the acting is top notch. Bottom Line, it’s awesome … an art-house action flick at its finest.
Rated R for strong brutal bloody violence, language and some nudity.
Clark
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
THE TREE OF LIFE 3.0***
This is a simple story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
This film is presented in 4 distinct acts and the acts are very disjointed, and although they are woven together by somewhat obscure common elements, the experience can still be very disorienting and confusing. .
. The film begins with a peek into the life of a 1950s American family that suffers a tragedy. It leaps forward and back in time, setting up the individual characters and their roles in the drama. Though presented in a very fragmented way, this part should be easy enough to follow.. The next sequence, lasting about 20 minutes, is a very impressionistic journey through space, time and evolution that depicts the creation of Earth, the beginnings of life, the era of the dinosaurs, and the events leading to the rise of man. Although this sequence is awesome in its beauty and enjoyable enough on its own rights, it feels like it belongs more as part of a History Channel/Discovery Channel documentary than as a cohesive segment of The Tree of Life. It's somewhat reminiscent of the "acid trip sequence" at the end of "2001". After that, we return to the 1950s. This sequence makes up the body of this film. Having established the setting & tone, the director gives us a story. It's presented in a series of vignettes focusing mostly on the love-hate relationship between a boy and his father. Both the father & son are jerks struggling to become good, each in his own way. We return to another impressionistic sequence, this time including the main characters and short bits of dialogue & voice-overs. To some of the audience it may give closure & satisfaction. To others, it may be infuriatingly insufficient
How do you watch such a film? Well you've got to lower any defenses you have. You've got to try not to make a sense out of everything you see. You've got to take it all in, and let it enter you, just as smoothly as the film explores the evolution of the universe, the evolution of the species and man from the most primitive of cells to the dinosaurs to a simple living room of a troubled family. Make no judgments, consider nothing except the pure experience of being there, wherever the film takes you. Search for no explanation, for there is no real rational reasons other than for the images to be as they are.
The film reflects profoundly the pure mastery of every tool of film creation. Every image counts, each shot was taken with competence and passion, each frame, each camera move is done to perfection by one of the best cinematographers ever. The editing is world class. Every cut, whether the space virtual shots or the family scenes, matter to the narrative, whatever that is. What helps to take this to a whole new level is the incredible leverage of music.. Watch it, let yourself get absorbed. Don’t fight it. Don’t try to figure it out . Just go with it for the experience.
This film demands an incredible lot from you, as a viewer. It demands that you be a different person and use a different approach to film- watching.
Clark
This is a simple story of a Texas family in the 1950s. The film follows the life journey of the eldest son, Jack, through the innocence of childhood to his disillusioned adult years as he tries to reconcile a complicated relationship with his father (Brad Pitt). Jack (played as an adult by Sean Penn) finds himself a lost soul in the modern world, seeking answers to the origins and meaning of life while questioning the existence of faith.
This film is presented in 4 distinct acts and the acts are very disjointed, and although they are woven together by somewhat obscure common elements, the experience can still be very disorienting and confusing. .
. The film begins with a peek into the life of a 1950s American family that suffers a tragedy. It leaps forward and back in time, setting up the individual characters and their roles in the drama. Though presented in a very fragmented way, this part should be easy enough to follow.. The next sequence, lasting about 20 minutes, is a very impressionistic journey through space, time and evolution that depicts the creation of Earth, the beginnings of life, the era of the dinosaurs, and the events leading to the rise of man. Although this sequence is awesome in its beauty and enjoyable enough on its own rights, it feels like it belongs more as part of a History Channel/Discovery Channel documentary than as a cohesive segment of The Tree of Life. It's somewhat reminiscent of the "acid trip sequence" at the end of "2001". After that, we return to the 1950s. This sequence makes up the body of this film. Having established the setting & tone, the director gives us a story. It's presented in a series of vignettes focusing mostly on the love-hate relationship between a boy and his father. Both the father & son are jerks struggling to become good, each in his own way. We return to another impressionistic sequence, this time including the main characters and short bits of dialogue & voice-overs. To some of the audience it may give closure & satisfaction. To others, it may be infuriatingly insufficient
How do you watch such a film? Well you've got to lower any defenses you have. You've got to try not to make a sense out of everything you see. You've got to take it all in, and let it enter you, just as smoothly as the film explores the evolution of the universe, the evolution of the species and man from the most primitive of cells to the dinosaurs to a simple living room of a troubled family. Make no judgments, consider nothing except the pure experience of being there, wherever the film takes you. Search for no explanation, for there is no real rational reasons other than for the images to be as they are.
The film reflects profoundly the pure mastery of every tool of film creation. Every image counts, each shot was taken with competence and passion, each frame, each camera move is done to perfection by one of the best cinematographers ever. The editing is world class. Every cut, whether the space virtual shots or the family scenes, matter to the narrative, whatever that is. What helps to take this to a whole new level is the incredible leverage of music.. Watch it, let yourself get absorbed. Don’t fight it. Don’t try to figure it out . Just go with it for the experience.
This film demands an incredible lot from you, as a viewer. It demands that you be a different person and use a different approach to film- watching.
Clark
Saturday, February 18, 2012
HUGO 3.75****
This is a sweet and gentle tale, full of unexpected warmth and depth. It is the story of Hugo Cabret( Asa Butterfield), an orphan and keeper of the clocks at a train station in Paris. His only connection to his deceased father is a broken-down automaton ( mechanical man) the two were repairing before his father's death in a fire. When Hugo is caught stealing parts for the automaton by George Melies, an old owner of a toy shop in the station (Ben Kingsley), his booklet of sketches related to the curious mechanical man is taken from him by Melies. Attempting to retrieve it, he meets Isabelle, the goddaughter of Melies. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery behind Kingsley's character and help bring his true identity to light.
Asa Butterfield as Hugo gives an outstanding performance as Hugo and Chloe Grace Moretz shines sublimely as the precocious Isabelle. Of course, Ben Kingsley gives a terrific performance, powerful and poignant. He plays a broken man anguished by the shadows of the past. Sacha Baron Cohen's role as the obsessed Station Inspector is more than a one-dimensional figure. He is not merely some comic antagonist tossed in for the sake of slapstick. He is also a fascinating and well-developed character in his own right.
There has been some objection to Martin Scorsese as the director of such films as “Taxi driver” and “Goodfellas” making a “children’s” film. But “Hugo” shows that a so-called children’s movie doesn’t have to be silly or dumbed down. This is an intelligent and wondrous movie… a real tribute to the magic of cinema. It reminds me of why I love movies so much.
The visuals of the movie and brown tones along with the 3D effect makes it look like a combination of typical Scorsese style but at times with the 3D it also looks like a beautiful pop-up book. There are many strong human scenes in Hugo that are signature Scorsese. One particular scene was when Papa Georges catches Hugo and Isabelle snooping through his old movie drawings. In actor Kingsley's hurt reaction, "I trusted you. You're just cruel…just cruel" there viewers can see the Scorsese stamp in revealing of the character's soul through the actor.
It’s one of the ten movies nominated for Best Movie in the Oscar race.
Clark
This is a sweet and gentle tale, full of unexpected warmth and depth. It is the story of Hugo Cabret( Asa Butterfield), an orphan and keeper of the clocks at a train station in Paris. His only connection to his deceased father is a broken-down automaton ( mechanical man) the two were repairing before his father's death in a fire. When Hugo is caught stealing parts for the automaton by George Melies, an old owner of a toy shop in the station (Ben Kingsley), his booklet of sketches related to the curious mechanical man is taken from him by Melies. Attempting to retrieve it, he meets Isabelle, the goddaughter of Melies. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery behind Kingsley's character and help bring his true identity to light.
Asa Butterfield as Hugo gives an outstanding performance as Hugo and Chloe Grace Moretz shines sublimely as the precocious Isabelle. Of course, Ben Kingsley gives a terrific performance, powerful and poignant. He plays a broken man anguished by the shadows of the past. Sacha Baron Cohen's role as the obsessed Station Inspector is more than a one-dimensional figure. He is not merely some comic antagonist tossed in for the sake of slapstick. He is also a fascinating and well-developed character in his own right.
There has been some objection to Martin Scorsese as the director of such films as “Taxi driver” and “Goodfellas” making a “children’s” film. But “Hugo” shows that a so-called children’s movie doesn’t have to be silly or dumbed down. This is an intelligent and wondrous movie… a real tribute to the magic of cinema. It reminds me of why I love movies so much.
The visuals of the movie and brown tones along with the 3D effect makes it look like a combination of typical Scorsese style but at times with the 3D it also looks like a beautiful pop-up book. There are many strong human scenes in Hugo that are signature Scorsese. One particular scene was when Papa Georges catches Hugo and Isabelle snooping through his old movie drawings. In actor Kingsley's hurt reaction, "I trusted you. You're just cruel…just cruel" there viewers can see the Scorsese stamp in revealing of the character's soul through the actor.
It’s one of the ten movies nominated for Best Movie in the Oscar race.
Clark
Sunday, February 5, 2012
MONEYBALL 3.75 ***
This is a the high quality drama …. a baseball-docu-drama…. But one even folks with zero baseball knowledge can enjoy and be moved by.
The role of Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, is an incredibly demanding one. While there are tons of dialog, hack arguments, display of physical rage, etc; it is the silent storytelling, emotional turmoil, change-of-heart reflections and so on that are the toughest to convey and requires a well-seasoned character actor. This is easily Brad at his widest acting range - and you see all of it in a little over two hours.
Jonah Hill's performance in the film is phenomenal, and this may be the break that that young actor has been joshing for. His portrayal of Peter Brand, a Yale Economics major and full time computer nerd is beyond believable .
Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of the ready-to-exit Oakland A's coach, Art Howe, caught between "the for-sure old money" and the "crazy senseless new reality", is right on . They couldn’t have cast this part any better. Hoffman delivers in every single scene and you literally sweat his frustration along with him. This foil to Brad Pitt's character is quite effective and makes for some heavy- drama with Brad.
This is an "onion" movie in that it peels back layers of good drama as it goes along each adding to the overall effect.. It is an entertaining account of modern baseball history - how player statistics became one of the most important factors determining financial success in modern baseball and how a washed-out General Managers , Brad Pitt, finally wakes up to that approach - and finds himself becoming one of the greatest innovators of the modern game.
At this historic moment in time, the message really hits a home-run! Other than baseball, we've recently witnessed similar changes and conflicts played out in public across the automobile, music distribution, movie distribution, book distribution, home computer, banking , and many other industries. Every unemployed in a vanishing industry can easily identify with the old Billy Beane. It’s how Billy leverages his disappointment and experience, to turn his life around that we can all aspire to.
It’s been nominated for several Oscars including Best Picture; Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor(Hill) and Best Adapted Screen Play.
Clark
This is a the high quality drama …. a baseball-docu-drama…. But one even folks with zero baseball knowledge can enjoy and be moved by.
The role of Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, is an incredibly demanding one. While there are tons of dialog, hack arguments, display of physical rage, etc; it is the silent storytelling, emotional turmoil, change-of-heart reflections and so on that are the toughest to convey and requires a well-seasoned character actor. This is easily Brad at his widest acting range - and you see all of it in a little over two hours.
Jonah Hill's performance in the film is phenomenal, and this may be the break that that young actor has been joshing for. His portrayal of Peter Brand, a Yale Economics major and full time computer nerd is beyond believable .
Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of the ready-to-exit Oakland A's coach, Art Howe, caught between "the for-sure old money" and the "crazy senseless new reality", is right on . They couldn’t have cast this part any better. Hoffman delivers in every single scene and you literally sweat his frustration along with him. This foil to Brad Pitt's character is quite effective and makes for some heavy- drama with Brad.
This is an "onion" movie in that it peels back layers of good drama as it goes along each adding to the overall effect.. It is an entertaining account of modern baseball history - how player statistics became one of the most important factors determining financial success in modern baseball and how a washed-out General Managers , Brad Pitt, finally wakes up to that approach - and finds himself becoming one of the greatest innovators of the modern game.
At this historic moment in time, the message really hits a home-run! Other than baseball, we've recently witnessed similar changes and conflicts played out in public across the automobile, music distribution, movie distribution, book distribution, home computer, banking , and many other industries. Every unemployed in a vanishing industry can easily identify with the old Billy Beane. It’s how Billy leverages his disappointment and experience, to turn his life around that we can all aspire to.
It’s been nominated for several Oscars including Best Picture; Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor(Hill) and Best Adapted Screen Play.
Clark
Thursday, February 2, 2012
THE ARTIST 4.0****
I’ll start by saying if you have a Jack Russell Terrier you HAVE to see this film. If you love dogs in general, you will want to see it. Regardless of whether you care about dogs, you SHOULD see this movie. It is a delightful masterpiece.
In case you didn’t t know , this is a black and white film … YES that means NO color. ALSO it is a silent film which … YES means, means NO talking. Most in today’s movie audience have never actually seen a silent film. So the proposed task of sitting through an entire production based on the concept of a silent actor portrayed in a silent movie could be intimidating or more likely a turn off. BUT for those who are willing to try something different, The Artist will provide one of the most entertaining and amazing experiences you’ll have with a movie.
The storyline: George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the king of silent movies in Hollywood in 1927. Audiences just adore everything George is a part of. Along comes Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) who you just know is going to be a huge star someday. George and Peppy work together on one film as George not only takes her under his wing, but an undeniable spark develops between the two. Over the course of the next few years, silent movies fade into obscurity as talking pictures or "talkies" explode onto the scene. George finds himself out of work, a has-been, and decides to prove the world wrong by making his own silent film which turns out to be a disaster.. All the while, Peppy finds herself as the new face of the talking Hollywood era. From here The Artist weaves a wonderfully spirited portrayal of a man who has it all, loses what he loves, and must come to terms with what his life can be.
The Artist is funny and charming right out the gate. Jean Dujardin really plays to the crowd and appears to love nothing more than catering to the people who come to see his films. George's dog Jack might be the best form of comic relief seen in a while along with being one of the cutest dogs you’ll ever see in a movie. The laughs are there, the charms are there. The Artist has a firm grip on your heart and your attention and never lets go.
The Artist is memorable in just about every way, especially in its remarkable recreation of an era long gone. Film has evolved so much over the decades, but somehow everyone involved here was able to transport themselves and the audience back to the silent era. With this, we were given a gift of a film that one hundred percent feels like it comes to us from another time period. With a bounty of instantly classic scenes, from the dancing legs to the climatic "Look what you've become...", this is a true winner that is an absolute crowd-pleaser. . I have to admit that it didn't seem like the kind of film I would like, but it absolutely won me over in every way.
You have to marvel at how such a large step backward could end up being such a monumental leap forward . You will laugh, you will cry. But mostly laugh. After watching this film, I was smitten by its distinct and appealing character. It is a fabulous movie.
This film was SO good it left me “speechless” ( I know… a groaner but I just couldn’t pass it up).
Clark
I’ll start by saying if you have a Jack Russell Terrier you HAVE to see this film. If you love dogs in general, you will want to see it. Regardless of whether you care about dogs, you SHOULD see this movie. It is a delightful masterpiece.
In case you didn’t t know , this is a black and white film … YES that means NO color. ALSO it is a silent film which … YES means, means NO talking. Most in today’s movie audience have never actually seen a silent film. So the proposed task of sitting through an entire production based on the concept of a silent actor portrayed in a silent movie could be intimidating or more likely a turn off. BUT for those who are willing to try something different, The Artist will provide one of the most entertaining and amazing experiences you’ll have with a movie.
The storyline: George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is the king of silent movies in Hollywood in 1927. Audiences just adore everything George is a part of. Along comes Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) who you just know is going to be a huge star someday. George and Peppy work together on one film as George not only takes her under his wing, but an undeniable spark develops between the two. Over the course of the next few years, silent movies fade into obscurity as talking pictures or "talkies" explode onto the scene. George finds himself out of work, a has-been, and decides to prove the world wrong by making his own silent film which turns out to be a disaster.. All the while, Peppy finds herself as the new face of the talking Hollywood era. From here The Artist weaves a wonderfully spirited portrayal of a man who has it all, loses what he loves, and must come to terms with what his life can be.
The Artist is funny and charming right out the gate. Jean Dujardin really plays to the crowd and appears to love nothing more than catering to the people who come to see his films. George's dog Jack might be the best form of comic relief seen in a while along with being one of the cutest dogs you’ll ever see in a movie. The laughs are there, the charms are there. The Artist has a firm grip on your heart and your attention and never lets go.
The Artist is memorable in just about every way, especially in its remarkable recreation of an era long gone. Film has evolved so much over the decades, but somehow everyone involved here was able to transport themselves and the audience back to the silent era. With this, we were given a gift of a film that one hundred percent feels like it comes to us from another time period. With a bounty of instantly classic scenes, from the dancing legs to the climatic "Look what you've become...", this is a true winner that is an absolute crowd-pleaser. . I have to admit that it didn't seem like the kind of film I would like, but it absolutely won me over in every way.
You have to marvel at how such a large step backward could end up being such a monumental leap forward . You will laugh, you will cry. But mostly laugh. After watching this film, I was smitten by its distinct and appealing character. It is a fabulous movie.
This film was SO good it left me “speechless” ( I know… a groaner but I just couldn’t pass it up).
Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)