SAME TIME NEXT YEAR 3.5*** (almost 4.0****)
This is an “oldie but goodie” from 1978 that you can find on DVD. It happens to be one of my all time favorite “feel good” movies and I heartily recommend it to anyone who believes in the spirit of love and friendship. And what a beautiful movie it is…especially from a story standpoint …not much for scenery as it pretty much all takes place in one small cottage on the California coast.
Here is the story: A man (Alan Alda) and a woman (Ellen Burstyn) meet by chance at a romantic inn over dinner. Although both are married , they find themselves in the same bed the next morning questioning how it could have happened. Well, it was love at first “smile”. They agree to meet on the same weekend each year even though the story only chronicles their meetings every five years. Each 5 year vignette has its own special charm...my favorite is the year they meet and they can't have sex because Doris is pregnant, and that’s 8 months’ pregnant…so you guess what happens. As you can see, they share intimate and extremely emotional times together over the course of the twenty-five years. Through their long going relationship, we see how the world changes from 1951 to 1978 (through still images and music between the years). I found myself completely involved with and thoroughly enjoying these characters. I have to credit this to well done character development, to the excellent writing and, of course to the terrific performance of the actors.
Alan Alda and Ellen Burstyn are simply marvelous together. Ellen Burstyn turns in a subtle, nuanced performance. She plays the part of a naive "stay-at-home" mother who blossoms into a confident, talented businesswoman She can act more with her eyes than most can with their entire bodies. What can we say about Alan Alda? He plays a very funny neurotic character whom you like instantly. A really lovable guy. If you've ever wanted to see what chemistry between two movie characters is all about, see this film.
Burstyn's rich performance earned her an Oscar nomination. Mention should also be made of the beautiful love theme for the film sung by Johnny Mathis and Jane Olivor, "The Last Time I Felt Like This". This is wonderful “feel good” film for the romantic in all of us.
Clark
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
THE YOUNG VICTORIA 4.0*****
What magnificent movie !! I was thrilled from the very beginning to the very end. In fact, I really did not want it to end. There were some especially splendid moments when I was so caught-up in this grand story and the gorgeous visuals that I believe I may have levitated out of my seat. Fortunately my wife, Sara, was there to “reign” me in, and, by the way, she enjoyed the movie as much as I did.
The movie is about the early years of England’s Queen Victoria, who reigned as Queen for over 63 years. It touches on her childhood but only briefly. The main focus of the story begins when she was 17 years old and about to become Queen due to the failing health of her childless uncle, King William. From the time it became fairly clear that Victoria would be Queen, her mother and her mother’s power hungry advisor/lover were constantly scheming and conniving to try to gain control over her but she stubbornly defied their every move. Other politicians in England as well as family connections/politicians in other countries, including Belgium and Germany, were all attempting to maneuver and control her. Upon the death of King William she, at 18, became Queen. Along the way, she was courted by the very charming and handsome Prince Albert of Germany, who also happened to be her first cousin. The most charming and interesting part of the movie is their courtship and the growth of their relationship and love….all while under intense scrutiny by so many and subject to the often rigid customs of courtship, especially when royalty is involved.
If you're a period piece movie buff, like I am, you absolutely must see "The Young Victoria" on the big screen. Along with her co-star Rupert Friend, who is outstanding in the role of Prince Albert, British actress Emily Blunt is splendid in the role of Victoria as she goes from an inexperienced, manipulated teenager to a powerful monarch who becomes passionately in love with and marries Prince Albert. Blunt is best known by American audiences as the nemesis co-worker of Anne Hathaway in "The Devil Wears Prada", starring Meryl Streep. Now she gets her chance at a starring role, one she very dearly wanted and sought. And the 26-year-old Blunt is perfectly radiant and brilliant in the role. She was nominated for Best Actress for Golden Globes and for the Screen Actors Guild and should be nominated for an Oscar.
Visually the movie is a feast for the eyes. The costumes, locations and sets are all magnificent. Victoria's dresses alone deserve an award Each one she wears is richly colored and elaborately tailored, making them impossible to ignore.( Below is Blunt in one of the many beautiful dresses). This is an engaging romance set within the political struggles of the British Royal Family. It has everything you could want in a period piece ---- drama and intrigue, humor, costuming, a wonderful soundtrack and outstanding performances . This is filmmaking at its best, one that entertains and educates at the same time.
BRAVO, BRAVO !!!!…Do NOT miss this one and you REALLY should see it in the theatre.
Clark
What magnificent movie !! I was thrilled from the very beginning to the very end. In fact, I really did not want it to end. There were some especially splendid moments when I was so caught-up in this grand story and the gorgeous visuals that I believe I may have levitated out of my seat. Fortunately my wife, Sara, was there to “reign” me in, and, by the way, she enjoyed the movie as much as I did.
The movie is about the early years of England’s Queen Victoria, who reigned as Queen for over 63 years. It touches on her childhood but only briefly. The main focus of the story begins when she was 17 years old and about to become Queen due to the failing health of her childless uncle, King William. From the time it became fairly clear that Victoria would be Queen, her mother and her mother’s power hungry advisor/lover were constantly scheming and conniving to try to gain control over her but she stubbornly defied their every move. Other politicians in England as well as family connections/politicians in other countries, including Belgium and Germany, were all attempting to maneuver and control her. Upon the death of King William she, at 18, became Queen. Along the way, she was courted by the very charming and handsome Prince Albert of Germany, who also happened to be her first cousin. The most charming and interesting part of the movie is their courtship and the growth of their relationship and love….all while under intense scrutiny by so many and subject to the often rigid customs of courtship, especially when royalty is involved.
If you're a period piece movie buff, like I am, you absolutely must see "The Young Victoria" on the big screen. Along with her co-star Rupert Friend, who is outstanding in the role of Prince Albert, British actress Emily Blunt is splendid in the role of Victoria as she goes from an inexperienced, manipulated teenager to a powerful monarch who becomes passionately in love with and marries Prince Albert. Blunt is best known by American audiences as the nemesis co-worker of Anne Hathaway in "The Devil Wears Prada", starring Meryl Streep. Now she gets her chance at a starring role, one she very dearly wanted and sought. And the 26-year-old Blunt is perfectly radiant and brilliant in the role. She was nominated for Best Actress for Golden Globes and for the Screen Actors Guild and should be nominated for an Oscar.
Visually the movie is a feast for the eyes. The costumes, locations and sets are all magnificent. Victoria's dresses alone deserve an award Each one she wears is richly colored and elaborately tailored, making them impossible to ignore.( Below is Blunt in one of the many beautiful dresses). This is an engaging romance set within the political struggles of the British Royal Family. It has everything you could want in a period piece ---- drama and intrigue, humor, costuming, a wonderful soundtrack and outstanding performances . This is filmmaking at its best, one that entertains and educates at the same time.
BRAVO, BRAVO !!!!…Do NOT miss this one and you REALLY should see it in the theatre.
Clark
Friday, January 22, 2010
DAYBREAKERS 1.0**
After only 22 days into the new year, I have already found a movie for my list of “WORST MOVIES of 2010. It’s so bad that, as is true for Vampires, it should never have seen “the light of day.” So bad that many believe the NAW ( National Association of Werewolves), secretly financed the movie with the hope that it would be so bad that it would put a stake through the heart of any future Vampire movies. So bad…well you get the idea…generally it “sucks”.
It’s 2019 and the world has become inhabited almost entirely by vampires as a result of a plague that began with a single bat bite 10 years earlier. Unfortunately, the number of humans is declining rapidly since they are hunted down and harvested for blood. So that means that the food/blood supply is reaching crisis proportions for the vampires. That’s why the chief corporate supplier of blood and its derivatives is engaged in urgent research to develop a blood substitute. The need is pressing because vampires who feed on themselves turn into monstrous bat-like creatures that threaten the new order. Ethan Hawke plays Ed Dalton, a humanitarian vampire hematologist, who is desperately trying to perfect a blood substitute that could sustain vampires and spare the few remaining humans. But time and hope are running out and Ed must battle the hard-core vampires who fear that part of the cure could result in a reconversion back to being a human.
A vampire movie needn’t be illuminating or amusing…most aren’t. But it should be interesting, and this one-----despite all the chases, fights and blood and gore---- simply isn’t; and, worst of all, it is NOT SCARY …now how bad is that. Furthermore, there is no emotional charge and you find it difficult to root for anyone other than yourself in the hopes making it to the end of the movie without going to sleep…and you don’t want to be asleep when vampires are around !!
Why Ethan Hawke, Sam Neil and William Dafoe signed on for this movie I don’t know unless it was for a big pay-off at the bank…or maybe I should say the “blood-bank”. Neil is a hardcore vampire who has no use for humans except for their blood.; Hawke is a vampire who likes humans and would like to be one again; and Dafoe is a human who used to be a vampire but was reconverted to a human…confused, don’t be; just don’t see it.
My advice… if you’re into vampire stories, skip this one altogether and, instead, go see or rent one of the “Twilight” films for the romantic spin, or watch rent or watch TV’s HBO series “ True Blood” for an interesting story of modern day vampires, both good and bad ones, mixed in with heavy romance.
Clark
After only 22 days into the new year, I have already found a movie for my list of “WORST MOVIES of 2010. It’s so bad that, as is true for Vampires, it should never have seen “the light of day.” So bad that many believe the NAW ( National Association of Werewolves), secretly financed the movie with the hope that it would be so bad that it would put a stake through the heart of any future Vampire movies. So bad…well you get the idea…generally it “sucks”.
It’s 2019 and the world has become inhabited almost entirely by vampires as a result of a plague that began with a single bat bite 10 years earlier. Unfortunately, the number of humans is declining rapidly since they are hunted down and harvested for blood. So that means that the food/blood supply is reaching crisis proportions for the vampires. That’s why the chief corporate supplier of blood and its derivatives is engaged in urgent research to develop a blood substitute. The need is pressing because vampires who feed on themselves turn into monstrous bat-like creatures that threaten the new order. Ethan Hawke plays Ed Dalton, a humanitarian vampire hematologist, who is desperately trying to perfect a blood substitute that could sustain vampires and spare the few remaining humans. But time and hope are running out and Ed must battle the hard-core vampires who fear that part of the cure could result in a reconversion back to being a human.
A vampire movie needn’t be illuminating or amusing…most aren’t. But it should be interesting, and this one-----despite all the chases, fights and blood and gore---- simply isn’t; and, worst of all, it is NOT SCARY …now how bad is that. Furthermore, there is no emotional charge and you find it difficult to root for anyone other than yourself in the hopes making it to the end of the movie without going to sleep…and you don’t want to be asleep when vampires are around !!
Why Ethan Hawke, Sam Neil and William Dafoe signed on for this movie I don’t know unless it was for a big pay-off at the bank…or maybe I should say the “blood-bank”. Neil is a hardcore vampire who has no use for humans except for their blood.; Hawke is a vampire who likes humans and would like to be one again; and Dafoe is a human who used to be a vampire but was reconverted to a human…confused, don’t be; just don’t see it.
My advice… if you’re into vampire stories, skip this one altogether and, instead, go see or rent one of the “Twilight” films for the romantic spin, or watch rent or watch TV’s HBO series “ True Blood” for an interesting story of modern day vampires, both good and bad ones, mixed in with heavy romance.
Clark
Monday, January 18, 2010
A SINGLE MAN 3.0*** (almost 3.5***)
The story takes place over the course of just one day (and night) – November 30, 1962 -- in the life of handsome, middle-aged college professor George (Colin Firth). Like his friend, neighbor and one-time lover Charley (Julianne Moore), George is an English transplant living in LA. He has a good job and a well-appointed home on a picture-perfect suburban street. But since the death of his long-term lover Joe a few months earlier, George has been heavily grieving inside and just going through the motions day after awful day without Joe. Now today it appears that he is putting his affairs in order, with a view toward ending it all.
Colin Firth in the lead role is a revelation. As George's day unfolds, a series of reveries -- erotic, nostalgic, humorous and sad -- reveal the man behind the carefully suited and mannered exterior. Whether observing his neighbors, lavishing praise on a secretary, or enduring a discourse on bomb shelters from a colleague , Firth shows a welcome lightness of touch. He's tender and tolerant as Julianne Moore, in a gin-induced state, berates him for his not being the man she needs. And his obsessive-compulsive fumbling with a gun and a sleeping bag are hilarious Colin Firth should get an Oscar nomination and possibly even the Oscar. It is hard to pull off what he did. And he did it perfectly. And, Julianne Moore is excellent as she expertly conveys the fragility and hopelessness of a woman once married and once feted for her good looks, who is now staring into the abyss through the bottom of a bottle of gin.
This is a story about the essence of attachment and love. The gender of the leading character, that he is gay, does matter because this is 1962, but, even so, it is not the main issue. It’s the sixteen years of love, intimacy, and the coming together and uniting of two soul mates. It is believed by some that when one swan dies, its mate flies very high and then plunges to its death. If such is true, then the heart of this story is about that same kind of devotion and love.
Clark
The story takes place over the course of just one day (and night) – November 30, 1962 -- in the life of handsome, middle-aged college professor George (Colin Firth). Like his friend, neighbor and one-time lover Charley (Julianne Moore), George is an English transplant living in LA. He has a good job and a well-appointed home on a picture-perfect suburban street. But since the death of his long-term lover Joe a few months earlier, George has been heavily grieving inside and just going through the motions day after awful day without Joe. Now today it appears that he is putting his affairs in order, with a view toward ending it all.
Colin Firth in the lead role is a revelation. As George's day unfolds, a series of reveries -- erotic, nostalgic, humorous and sad -- reveal the man behind the carefully suited and mannered exterior. Whether observing his neighbors, lavishing praise on a secretary, or enduring a discourse on bomb shelters from a colleague , Firth shows a welcome lightness of touch. He's tender and tolerant as Julianne Moore, in a gin-induced state, berates him for his not being the man she needs. And his obsessive-compulsive fumbling with a gun and a sleeping bag are hilarious Colin Firth should get an Oscar nomination and possibly even the Oscar. It is hard to pull off what he did. And he did it perfectly. And, Julianne Moore is excellent as she expertly conveys the fragility and hopelessness of a woman once married and once feted for her good looks, who is now staring into the abyss through the bottom of a bottle of gin.
This is a story about the essence of attachment and love. The gender of the leading character, that he is gay, does matter because this is 1962, but, even so, it is not the main issue. It’s the sixteen years of love, intimacy, and the coming together and uniting of two soul mates. It is believed by some that when one swan dies, its mate flies very high and then plunges to its death. If such is true, then the heart of this story is about that same kind of devotion and love.
Clark
FANTASTIC MR. FOX 3.0*** (almost 3.5***)
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is such a good time movie that when the credits begin to roll at the end and the delightful movie characters are joyfully dancing in a humongous supermarket, you just can’t help but smile.
“Fantastic” is the operative word in director Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic. The film tells the story of Mr. Fox, who gave up his life of stealing chickens to settle down with his wife, Mrs. Fox, and start a family, but when Mr. Fox relapses into his chicken-stealing ways , everything just busts loose, and the movie fun really begins. The film is a marvelous piece of stop-motion animation. Yes. I said “stop action”. Many of you may have seen similar “stop action” films such as “Nightmare Before Christmas”. But this stop-motion film is so much more clever, charming, and lovable than the others, and the design of the furry animals are quite cute and adorable.
The animation is brought to life, thanks to the terrific voice-acting from the terrific “voice “cast. The titular character is done by George Clooney as the sly Mr. Fox, the upright soul with the sharp clothes and snappy dialogue ,and Meryl Streep is his long-suffering but loving wife. Other animals include Bill Murray's Badger, Willem Defoe's Rat, and Wallace Wolodarsky's Possum who nearly steals the show with frequent funny lines. Complementing the unique screen characters are the colorful sets, and the amazing soundtrack with both original tracks and carefully selected tracks from other artists like Burl Ives, The Beach Boys, and The Rolling Stones.
The real fascination with this movie lies in the notion of how long it actually must have taken these top notch art designers to bring everything to life. There are forces at play here that give one a clear sense of the fact that stepping away from a computer screen and getting things done the “good-ole fashion hard way” pays off when witnessing the final product. Production value is quite noticeable and I, for one, was transfixed by the universe of Mr. Fox.
Clark
“Fantastic Mr. Fox” is such a good time movie that when the credits begin to roll at the end and the delightful movie characters are joyfully dancing in a humongous supermarket, you just can’t help but smile.
“Fantastic” is the operative word in director Wes Anderson's adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic. The film tells the story of Mr. Fox, who gave up his life of stealing chickens to settle down with his wife, Mrs. Fox, and start a family, but when Mr. Fox relapses into his chicken-stealing ways , everything just busts loose, and the movie fun really begins. The film is a marvelous piece of stop-motion animation. Yes. I said “stop action”. Many of you may have seen similar “stop action” films such as “Nightmare Before Christmas”. But this stop-motion film is so much more clever, charming, and lovable than the others, and the design of the furry animals are quite cute and adorable.
The animation is brought to life, thanks to the terrific voice-acting from the terrific “voice “cast. The titular character is done by George Clooney as the sly Mr. Fox, the upright soul with the sharp clothes and snappy dialogue ,and Meryl Streep is his long-suffering but loving wife. Other animals include Bill Murray's Badger, Willem Defoe's Rat, and Wallace Wolodarsky's Possum who nearly steals the show with frequent funny lines. Complementing the unique screen characters are the colorful sets, and the amazing soundtrack with both original tracks and carefully selected tracks from other artists like Burl Ives, The Beach Boys, and The Rolling Stones.
The real fascination with this movie lies in the notion of how long it actually must have taken these top notch art designers to bring everything to life. There are forces at play here that give one a clear sense of the fact that stepping away from a computer screen and getting things done the “good-ole fashion hard way” pays off when witnessing the final product. Production value is quite noticeable and I, for one, was transfixed by the universe of Mr. Fox.
Clark
THE BOOK OF ELI…3.0*** (but barely)
This is the 3rd “end of the world” movie I’ve seen in about 6 weeks and I think I’m at the end of the road for this “genre” for a while. After all, enough is enough !! However, I will say that this one is different from the other two ( “2012” and “The Road” ) It’s about a man, Eli (Denzel Washington), who has been traveling for 30 years on foot across the United State heading west, presumptively to the “promised land”, on a mission of faith to deliver the last printed Bible in existence to those who need it and will treasure/worship it.
After the horrible “flash” ( an apocalyptic event of massive proportions where the sky opened up and fire rained down destroying everything and everyone who was above-ground or anywhere near.), the world is a post horrific place that is completely uncivilized and dangerous….where violence and mayhem rain.
Eli’s journey has been perilous and fraught with danger and violence at every turn…only his almost superhuman fighting skills…and perhaps divine intervention…have saved him. He eventually ventures into the semblance of a town ruled by a murderous dictator-type person( Gary Oldman) who’s unrelenting goal is to find the “book” that, unknown to him at first, is being carried by Eli. But once the cat’s out of the bag..we have the age-old clash between good versus evil. What will happen to the “book”? What will happen to Eli ?
Eli’s character seems to be a contradiction…his decisions are often to “stay the course” and continue the journey when he could, instead, rescue helpless people and, at times, he even puts others in jeopardy to further his mission. So, I found myself asking that often perplexing Christian question: “What would Jesus Do?” ..and there are no easy answers. And even though Eli is not supposed to be Jesus you nonetheless view him as a man of faith, and often it is very difficult to reconcile his actions with his faith. A real puzzlement.
Denzel Washington is, as always, quite good, but not great here. Gary Oldman, as is often the case, way over the top as the bad guy. Mila Kunis (from TV’s “Seventies” show) is way miscast as the stepdaughter of Oldman who becomes a late in the film co-traveler with Eli..She looks like she just stepped out of “Seventeen” magazine …maybe a little dusty but just looking way too good for such an apocalyptic scroungey world. And then there’s the unrecognizable Jennifer Biel as Oldman’s sex slave, also mother to Kunis.
Overall, a decent movie, but very very gloomy, and very dreary..although there is just a spark of hope… after all, it’s not that often the prized possession….the “kill for/ die for” thing is “The King James Version of the Bible.”
Clark
J
This is the 3rd “end of the world” movie I’ve seen in about 6 weeks and I think I’m at the end of the road for this “genre” for a while. After all, enough is enough !! However, I will say that this one is different from the other two ( “2012” and “The Road” ) It’s about a man, Eli (Denzel Washington), who has been traveling for 30 years on foot across the United State heading west, presumptively to the “promised land”, on a mission of faith to deliver the last printed Bible in existence to those who need it and will treasure/worship it.
After the horrible “flash” ( an apocalyptic event of massive proportions where the sky opened up and fire rained down destroying everything and everyone who was above-ground or anywhere near.), the world is a post horrific place that is completely uncivilized and dangerous….where violence and mayhem rain.
Eli’s journey has been perilous and fraught with danger and violence at every turn…only his almost superhuman fighting skills…and perhaps divine intervention…have saved him. He eventually ventures into the semblance of a town ruled by a murderous dictator-type person( Gary Oldman) who’s unrelenting goal is to find the “book” that, unknown to him at first, is being carried by Eli. But once the cat’s out of the bag..we have the age-old clash between good versus evil. What will happen to the “book”? What will happen to Eli ?
Eli’s character seems to be a contradiction…his decisions are often to “stay the course” and continue the journey when he could, instead, rescue helpless people and, at times, he even puts others in jeopardy to further his mission. So, I found myself asking that often perplexing Christian question: “What would Jesus Do?” ..and there are no easy answers. And even though Eli is not supposed to be Jesus you nonetheless view him as a man of faith, and often it is very difficult to reconcile his actions with his faith. A real puzzlement.
Denzel Washington is, as always, quite good, but not great here. Gary Oldman, as is often the case, way over the top as the bad guy. Mila Kunis (from TV’s “Seventies” show) is way miscast as the stepdaughter of Oldman who becomes a late in the film co-traveler with Eli..She looks like she just stepped out of “Seventeen” magazine …maybe a little dusty but just looking way too good for such an apocalyptic scroungey world. And then there’s the unrecognizable Jennifer Biel as Oldman’s sex slave, also mother to Kunis.
Overall, a decent movie, but very very gloomy, and very dreary..although there is just a spark of hope… after all, it’s not that often the prized possession….the “kill for/ die for” thing is “The King James Version of the Bible.”
Clark
J
Saturday, January 16, 2010
THE LOVELY BONES 3.5**** (almost 4****)
I had been looking forward to this movie for some time, especially once I found out that Peter Jackson, director of the “Lord of The Rings” trilogy, would be the director. I, along with millions of others have read the critically acclaimed best-selling novel by Alice Sebold upon which the movie is based. All the readers were wondering with much anticipation and angst about how it would be done as a movie. The adaptation is set during the 1970s and is narrated by the voice of a 14 year old girl named Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan). Susie recalls the ordinary life she was living with her younger brother and sister and her parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz), up until she was raped and murdered by a serial killer (Stanley Tucci) In the narration,. Susie reveals that she is neither alive nor dead because she is stuck somewhere between Heaven and Earth. She cannot let go of her family and they cannot move on from her memory, especially her father who loved her so and is obsessed with finding her body and her killer. We see Susie struggling with her desire for vengeance against her killer and her desire for her family to heal.
I liked the movie very much and, to begin with, appreciate Jackson’s decision to take a somewhat soft and gentle approach at the beginning of the movie in that he does hot show the brutal rape and murder on the screen of Susie even though it was described in the book. This was a crucial decision in that it set the tone for the movie. Instead of a “Bloody Bones” story, we have a “Lovely Bones” story that focuses on the ever perplexing and fascinating mysteries of life and death and whether an after-death soul, such as Susie’s, can communicate, can affect, can touch in even the slightest way the living that are left behind. Even if not, can Susie see and feel, but not touch, those left behind. The story also portrays Susie in an ever changing mid-heaven where her soul and others’ souls reside until certain issues are resolved. Jackson does a marvelous job with the CGI to create this visual panorama of what envelopes Susie , what Susie sees and what she generates with her feelings in this mid-heaven.
This is a wonderful, heart-rendering story of the love of a family and, especially, the very deep love between a father and daughter and how that intense love could/maybe serve as a bridge between the living and the dead. The story is quite thought provoking on many levels and should ,if nothing else, cause you to treasure every single moment of your life and to live those moments wisely, lovingly and joyfully…after all, we never know when it will end.
Lastly the acting is superb. Saoirse Ronan, as Susie, commands the screen with her ethereal beauty and soul. She hauntingly portrays a lovely, young girl who knows that she’s been robbed of her youth, her future and all that it could have been. Other standouts are Wahlberg as the forlorn, at times desperate, father . But the show stopper is Stanley Tucci as the cunning, cold-hearted, evil-incarnate serial killer. His performance is similar in some ways to that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence Of The Lambs. I expect that Ronan, as Susie, will be nominated for Best Actress and Tucci for Best Supporting Actor and Tucci will be a favorite to win. Also the movie and Director will be nominated.
Clark
I had been looking forward to this movie for some time, especially once I found out that Peter Jackson, director of the “Lord of The Rings” trilogy, would be the director. I, along with millions of others have read the critically acclaimed best-selling novel by Alice Sebold upon which the movie is based. All the readers were wondering with much anticipation and angst about how it would be done as a movie. The adaptation is set during the 1970s and is narrated by the voice of a 14 year old girl named Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan). Susie recalls the ordinary life she was living with her younger brother and sister and her parents Jack and Abigail (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz), up until she was raped and murdered by a serial killer (Stanley Tucci) In the narration,. Susie reveals that she is neither alive nor dead because she is stuck somewhere between Heaven and Earth. She cannot let go of her family and they cannot move on from her memory, especially her father who loved her so and is obsessed with finding her body and her killer. We see Susie struggling with her desire for vengeance against her killer and her desire for her family to heal.
I liked the movie very much and, to begin with, appreciate Jackson’s decision to take a somewhat soft and gentle approach at the beginning of the movie in that he does hot show the brutal rape and murder on the screen of Susie even though it was described in the book. This was a crucial decision in that it set the tone for the movie. Instead of a “Bloody Bones” story, we have a “Lovely Bones” story that focuses on the ever perplexing and fascinating mysteries of life and death and whether an after-death soul, such as Susie’s, can communicate, can affect, can touch in even the slightest way the living that are left behind. Even if not, can Susie see and feel, but not touch, those left behind. The story also portrays Susie in an ever changing mid-heaven where her soul and others’ souls reside until certain issues are resolved. Jackson does a marvelous job with the CGI to create this visual panorama of what envelopes Susie , what Susie sees and what she generates with her feelings in this mid-heaven.
This is a wonderful, heart-rendering story of the love of a family and, especially, the very deep love between a father and daughter and how that intense love could/maybe serve as a bridge between the living and the dead. The story is quite thought provoking on many levels and should ,if nothing else, cause you to treasure every single moment of your life and to live those moments wisely, lovingly and joyfully…after all, we never know when it will end.
Lastly the acting is superb. Saoirse Ronan, as Susie, commands the screen with her ethereal beauty and soul. She hauntingly portrays a lovely, young girl who knows that she’s been robbed of her youth, her future and all that it could have been. Other standouts are Wahlberg as the forlorn, at times desperate, father . But the show stopper is Stanley Tucci as the cunning, cold-hearted, evil-incarnate serial killer. His performance is similar in some ways to that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence Of The Lambs. I expect that Ronan, as Susie, will be nominated for Best Actress and Tucci for Best Supporting Actor and Tucci will be a favorite to win. Also the movie and Director will be nominated.
Clark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)