Warrior
rating: *****
review: Perhaps the most recent example of old school Hollywood, Tom Hardy's Marlon Brando moment (following in the footsteps of Leo DiCaprio in The Departed), and finally introducing Joel Edgerton to the big time. So no, it's not really an MMA movie. It's great drama, period.
The Adjustment Bureau
rating: *****
review: Matt Damon and Emily Blunt in the romance edition of The Matrix, arguably the best film adapted from a Philip K. Dick story.
Source Code
rating: *****
review: This was a really great year for high concept science fiction. Jake Gyllenhaal in his best movie, a time-repeats-itself drama that builds on the Avatar conceit of a crippled man given a second chance, and seizing it. The result ends up becoming a parable for rejecting the conclusions others take for granted, and finding the path to happiness.
Midnight in Paris
rating: *****
review: My personal favorite Woody Allen film, with Corey Stoll stealing it as Ernest Hemingway, with Owen Wilson at last finding a mature role, in which he discovers everyone's golden age is just another illusion.
The Tree of Life
rating: *****
review: Terrence Malick's most visionary, expansive vision, a truly ethereal experience anchored by Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain in one of her first standout roles as parents just trying to keep it together.
Winnie the Pooh
rating: *****
review: A perfect version of the children's classic.
London Boulevard
rating: ****
review: Most gangster flicks seem to misunderstand glamourizing their subject matter with telling a compelling story. Colin Farrell plays one who desperately wants out because he realizes he's too good at it. But fate plays cruel tricks on all of us.
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2
rating: ****
review: The final act in the saga has everything except that elusive spark that typifies the best entries in the series, including the later Fantastic Beasts.
Green Lantern
rating: ****
review: For most observers this is a notorious failure, but I think it brilliantly captures everything that's magical, and even transcendent, about its source material, with yet another standout spotlight for Ryan Reynolds, an actor with the rare gift to sell emotion and comedy equally well.
Fright Night
rating: ****
review: The late Anton Yelchin leads a strong cast that also includes Colin Farrell and David Tennant in a rare remake that merely enjoys the potential of the source material.
Immortals
rating: ****
review: Mostly dismissed as a 300 knockoff, this is another excellent example of Tarsem's visionary storytelling, allowing a pre-Superman Henry Cavill to play low-key while Mickey Rourke gets to play the Russell Crowe/Gerard Butler menace that was his template to its obvious conclusions, this time as the villain.
The Way Back
rating: ****
review: A terrific ensemble led by Jim Sturges when he was still considered lead actor material, with Ed Harris and Colin Farrell (pulling off a wicked Russian accent) in a story of endurance and redemption.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
rating: ****
review: Christopher Plummer and Daniel Craig add considerable credibility to this Hollywood version of the literary smash hit, but Rooney Mara grabs the spotlight as Lisbeth Salander, in a performance that critics, audiences, and Mara herself have yet to fully appreciate.
Bridesmaids
rating: ****
review: An ensemble comedy classic headlined by Kristen Wiig but stolen by Melissa McCarthy's breakout performance.
Moneyball
rating: ****
review: I waited years to catch up with this one, fearing that it would be tedious, even though I was familiar, and interested, in the source material. But as it turns out, it really is a compelling spotlight for Brad Pitt, and a fine baseball movie, too.
Water for Elephants
rating: ****
review: Robert Pattinson in his one bid for standard Hollywood glory to date, and he nails it.
Larry Crowne
rating: ****
review: An underrated Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts pairing stolen by the criminally underrate Mbatha-Raw.
The Muppets
rating: ****
review: Jason Segal got a chance to make this thanks to the arguably superior Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but the sequel's better, and funnier.
Cowboys & Aliens
rating: ****
review: Despite being billed as James Bond Meets Indiana Jones, this is really another standout Daniel Craig vehicle with Harrison Ford putting in an excellent supporting turn.
Super 8
rating: ****
review: Yeah, yeah, J.J. Abrams doing his version of Spielberg. But it's really the welcome featured performance of Kyle Chandler that interests me. Guy gets too little recognition.
Horrible Bosses
rating: ****
review: Basically a version of The Hangover without, y'know, a hangover, just dimwit friends trying desperately to get out of trouble. The real highlight is the trio of big stars in supporting roles (Kevin Spacey, Colin Farrell, and Jennifer Aniston) playing the eponymous bosses, and clearly enjoying the opportunity.
Sucker Punch
rating: ****
review: Zack Snyder's big for an original vision typically made male viewers uncomfortable with a female cast.
Hanna
rating: ****
review: Saoirse Ronan convincingly takes top billing over Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana in this Joe Wright drama.
Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
rating: ****
review: The fourth in the series effectively is the tonal reboot equivalent of the fourth Fast & Furious, the one that set the standard for what followed, and all it took was Tom Cruise joining the brief bandwagon of Jeremy Renner threatening to take everything over.
X-Men: First Class
rating: ****
review: Though overwrought in its Nazi details, this quasi-reboot nails it in finally centering the drama around Magneto and Professor X, brilliantly recast with Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy, respectively.
Fast Five
rating: ****
review: The year the MCU Avengers cycle ramped up production to meet its first
shared universe" destination later, the Fast & Furious films got there first, integrating all previous films and fatefully adding someone new: Dwayne Johnson.
The Descendants
rating: ****
review: George Clooney sought so desperately for a mature spotlight, but ironically all it really took was being willing to look vulnerable. And thus a perfect mature spotlight.
Machine Gun Preacher
rating: ****
review: Apparently the technical veracity of the real story behind the film is, ah, somewhat up for question, but this is as perfect a dramatic spotlight as Gerard Butler is ever going to find.
HappyThankYouMorePlease
rating: ***
review: Josh Radnor's initial attempt to replicate Zach Braff's movie success is a minor victory.
The Conspirator
rating: ***
review: The trial of the surviving Lincoln assassin conspirators centers around whether or not it was okay to condemn a woman (Robin Wright). I'm not sure it really succeeds, but it at least expands the traditional narrative of the events.
Hugo
rating: ***
review: Scorsese sort of reaches for Harry Potter, but betrays his greater interest in old Hollywood.
The Artist
rating: ***
review: An Oscar winner that leans heavily into the obvious. If this had been old Hollywood, the stars would've been more charismatic.
Mr. Popper's Penguins
rating: ***
review: Jim Carrey's last leading role (to that point) leans heavily on those adorable penguins, inexplicably leaving him little to do but play in support.
The Debt
rating: ***
review: I'm not part of the cult of Helen Mirren. I have enjoyed Mirren performances, but mostly I think too many filmmakers have mistakenly assumed her appeal is broad. I think her presence in the final act of this one spoils a terrific Sam Worthington/Jessica Chastain spotlight.
The Hangover Part II
rating: ***
review: The gang is back together! And it's good harmless fun letting them repeat themselves.
Captain America: The First Avenger
rating: ***
review: Chris Evans can do everything but make Cap compelling in a movie that basically just wants him to end up in ice after everything he goes through just to get in the fight.
Unknown
rating: ***
review: The Liam Neeson action vehicle was just getting underway when he starred in this amnesia flick.
Thor
rating: ***
review: The best thing about it is Tom Hiddleston's supporting role as Loki, which turned out to be exactly what later films needed.
Courageous
rating: ***
review: An urgent Christian drama with a breakout moment featuring a Hispanic dude pret3ending to be a gangster.
Spy Kids: All the Time in the World
rating: ***
review: I have yet to see the previous entries, but it just seems, in this one, that Robert Rodriquez gets lost in the action.
Puss in Boots
rating: ***
review: This Shrek spinoff is best appreciated as the never-gonna-happen-otherwise third Zorro flick starring Antonio Banderas.
The Green Hornet
rating: ***
review: I bet the studio is kicking itself for letting Seth Rogen star in this, when it could've easily, given the later MCU examples, cast a more traditional superhero actor, with the same comedic outlook, and gotten years of sequels out of it.
Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil
rating: ***
review: Here's another tiny minority in which I'm a part: I loved the first one. This one is comparatively too streamlined, leaning away, inexplicably, from the absurdist humor that defined the first one.
Conan O'Brien Can't Stop
rating: **
review: This is the only way I could possibly not feel bad for the guy who infamously won and lost the Tonight Show, by making it sort of clear that either he became an attention whore because of it, or maybe was all along. I can't believe the makers of this documentary didn't realize how unsympathetic they made this portrait, at the height of public sympathy for the guy.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
rating: **
review: I thought this was all but a complete disaster. I have never seen the sequels.
Atlas Shrugged: Part 1
rating: *
review: Whoever financed this made no effort at all to make it compelling. Wow. Good job!
Showing posts with label 2011. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2011. Show all posts
Monday, May 27, 2019
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Moneyball (2011)
rating: ****
the story: Billy Beane starts a revolution in baseball by putting the hard focus on stats.
the review: I was always going to watch Moneyball, but I also put it off for years. The reason for both is the same, and that's Brad Pitt. Pitt's one of the best actors working today, but his best work is retreating into the past, and I always thought Moneyball was the start of that. I mean, what does Moneyball have to say about his talent, his unique charisma? It's a movie about baseball stats!
As it turns out, plenty. It's one of those quintessential Pitt roles. It's a lot like his Jesse James (as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, one of my all-time favorites). In fact, that's the best reason to watch it. I've got and will go into plenty of others, too, but that's the main reason, and it's the big thrust of the movie itself. It conforms real history into a showcase performance. You can't appreciate the art of filmmaking if you watch a movie like Moneyball and don't understand that. I'm not talking "showcase performance" in that Pitt makes it flashy, but that it's a role that boils down the essence of a Brad Pitt performance and gives it another context. That's a movie star. And maybe that's why Pitt doesn't get a lot of great roles these days, because the focus had shifted far away from movie stars and onto blockbuster franchises (actual and would-be). So far the closest Pitt's come to work like that is the unexpected success of World War Z (which I also got around to watching recently, and enjoyed to a lesser extent).
Billy Beane was the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season the movie covers. The A's were struggling to recover from the loss of three key players from a great 2001 campaign, mostly because of, well, money. In fact, Moneyball is less about baseball than it is about money. It's a Great Recession movie. It's about a small market team struggling to remain competitive against big market teams. The movie uses a graphic that explains the huge disparity between the payroll of the A's and the most successful franchise in MLB history, the New York Yankees. Basically it's about the haves and the have-nots, the 1% and the lower class. (It may be worth remembering that although athletes are paid handsomely today, more in some sports than others, and more with greater visibility, they used to do this as a side hobby back in the day, as in, for no pay. Jim Thorpe got screwed out of Olympic glory because he played baseball for money, but these guys used to struggle on this life. In other words, this isn't to note the irony of people playing baseball complaining about money. Relatively speaking, Moneyball is talking about all the players making minimum wage.)
Moneyball, in effect, is the predecessor of later movies like The Big Short (2015). In that sense it's also relevant to speak of co-writer Aaron Sorkin's involvement. It may not be known as an Aaron Sorkin project, but it's got Sorkin all over it. Above all else, Sorkin is always interested in trying to riddle out why something's happened. That's The West Wing, trying to figure out why politics remained popular despite how divisive they had become and were going to remain long after the TV series ended. That's The Social Network, trying to figure out how Facebook became so big despite its humbling origins. That's Jobs, trying to explain the rise of new technology against a backdrop of a classic cult of personality. That's even Molly's Game, trying to explain gambling being as relevant as ever. And that's Moneyball, trying to explain how the Great Recession wasn't going to change anything. The story ends with Beane failing to achieve his goal of leveling the playing field. Red Sox fans know another big market team used his tactics to succeed, and now everyone uses them, and so small market teams like the A's are right back where they started. Like any attempt to fix the economy so it works for everyone, apparently.
But you needn't worry about politics or economics to enjoy Moneyball. Like all great movies, you've got a great cast, one that continually rewards you. You've got the always-underrated Robin Wright there in another thankless supporting role. You've got Philip Seymour Hoffman in his classic Patch Adams mode, the mainstream naysayer standing in Beane's way as A's manager. You've got Jonah Hill reinventing his career as a dramatic actor, inspiring and encouraging Beane to look beyond the standard. And you've got...Chris Pratt?
In 2011, Pratt was two years into his career-making turn in the sitcom Parks & Recreation, three away from his breakout role in Guardians of the Galaxy. In Moneyball he plays one of three key small-salary players Beane scoops up to replace superstars. I can't be sure that this isn't hindsight speaking, but he easily stands out from the pack, acting-wise, and even in a small role stands out in the film, without hamming it up, as he does in Guardians. (In Parks he was cast in the John Krasinski Office role, and not unsurprisingly both have since taken the classic lovable everyman role to cinematic success.) Anyway, it's clear he stands out, that he's destined for greater things, and so it's a fun way to experience Pratt before he hit big. For all I know, Moneyball played a role in helping him get there.
As a lifelong fan of the A's, I always wanted to see the movie just on that front alone, and I wanted to know whether it acknowledged Beane's legacy with the 2004 Red Sox win in the World Series, and whether or not it referenced the "Greek God of Walks," Kevin Youkilis (items two and three? check and check). (Of course Beane usurper Theo Epstein, who helped engineer Boston's 2004 curse reversal, did it again with the Cubs after the film was released.)
The film puts a hard focus on some things and a soft one on others. It glosses over the ace pitching staff the A's had that season, all of whom were later poached (I've long called the A's the farm system of the rest of the league, which made it funny when Beane laments the same thing in the movie) by other teams. Clearly it has a narrative it wants to tell. I'm not going to quibble over stuff like that. As I said, it's really an excuse to let Pitt be Brad Pitt. I'll take that. Yeah...
the story: Billy Beane starts a revolution in baseball by putting the hard focus on stats.
the review: I was always going to watch Moneyball, but I also put it off for years. The reason for both is the same, and that's Brad Pitt. Pitt's one of the best actors working today, but his best work is retreating into the past, and I always thought Moneyball was the start of that. I mean, what does Moneyball have to say about his talent, his unique charisma? It's a movie about baseball stats!
As it turns out, plenty. It's one of those quintessential Pitt roles. It's a lot like his Jesse James (as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, one of my all-time favorites). In fact, that's the best reason to watch it. I've got and will go into plenty of others, too, but that's the main reason, and it's the big thrust of the movie itself. It conforms real history into a showcase performance. You can't appreciate the art of filmmaking if you watch a movie like Moneyball and don't understand that. I'm not talking "showcase performance" in that Pitt makes it flashy, but that it's a role that boils down the essence of a Brad Pitt performance and gives it another context. That's a movie star. And maybe that's why Pitt doesn't get a lot of great roles these days, because the focus had shifted far away from movie stars and onto blockbuster franchises (actual and would-be). So far the closest Pitt's come to work like that is the unexpected success of World War Z (which I also got around to watching recently, and enjoyed to a lesser extent).
Billy Beane was the general manager of the Oakland Athletics during the 2002 season the movie covers. The A's were struggling to recover from the loss of three key players from a great 2001 campaign, mostly because of, well, money. In fact, Moneyball is less about baseball than it is about money. It's a Great Recession movie. It's about a small market team struggling to remain competitive against big market teams. The movie uses a graphic that explains the huge disparity between the payroll of the A's and the most successful franchise in MLB history, the New York Yankees. Basically it's about the haves and the have-nots, the 1% and the lower class. (It may be worth remembering that although athletes are paid handsomely today, more in some sports than others, and more with greater visibility, they used to do this as a side hobby back in the day, as in, for no pay. Jim Thorpe got screwed out of Olympic glory because he played baseball for money, but these guys used to struggle on this life. In other words, this isn't to note the irony of people playing baseball complaining about money. Relatively speaking, Moneyball is talking about all the players making minimum wage.)
Moneyball, in effect, is the predecessor of later movies like The Big Short (2015). In that sense it's also relevant to speak of co-writer Aaron Sorkin's involvement. It may not be known as an Aaron Sorkin project, but it's got Sorkin all over it. Above all else, Sorkin is always interested in trying to riddle out why something's happened. That's The West Wing, trying to figure out why politics remained popular despite how divisive they had become and were going to remain long after the TV series ended. That's The Social Network, trying to figure out how Facebook became so big despite its humbling origins. That's Jobs, trying to explain the rise of new technology against a backdrop of a classic cult of personality. That's even Molly's Game, trying to explain gambling being as relevant as ever. And that's Moneyball, trying to explain how the Great Recession wasn't going to change anything. The story ends with Beane failing to achieve his goal of leveling the playing field. Red Sox fans know another big market team used his tactics to succeed, and now everyone uses them, and so small market teams like the A's are right back where they started. Like any attempt to fix the economy so it works for everyone, apparently.
But you needn't worry about politics or economics to enjoy Moneyball. Like all great movies, you've got a great cast, one that continually rewards you. You've got the always-underrated Robin Wright there in another thankless supporting role. You've got Philip Seymour Hoffman in his classic Patch Adams mode, the mainstream naysayer standing in Beane's way as A's manager. You've got Jonah Hill reinventing his career as a dramatic actor, inspiring and encouraging Beane to look beyond the standard. And you've got...Chris Pratt?
In 2011, Pratt was two years into his career-making turn in the sitcom Parks & Recreation, three away from his breakout role in Guardians of the Galaxy. In Moneyball he plays one of three key small-salary players Beane scoops up to replace superstars. I can't be sure that this isn't hindsight speaking, but he easily stands out from the pack, acting-wise, and even in a small role stands out in the film, without hamming it up, as he does in Guardians. (In Parks he was cast in the John Krasinski Office role, and not unsurprisingly both have since taken the classic lovable everyman role to cinematic success.) Anyway, it's clear he stands out, that he's destined for greater things, and so it's a fun way to experience Pratt before he hit big. For all I know, Moneyball played a role in helping him get there.
As a lifelong fan of the A's, I always wanted to see the movie just on that front alone, and I wanted to know whether it acknowledged Beane's legacy with the 2004 Red Sox win in the World Series, and whether or not it referenced the "Greek God of Walks," Kevin Youkilis (items two and three? check and check). (Of course Beane usurper Theo Epstein, who helped engineer Boston's 2004 curse reversal, did it again with the Cubs after the film was released.)
The film puts a hard focus on some things and a soft one on others. It glosses over the ace pitching staff the A's had that season, all of whom were later poached (I've long called the A's the farm system of the rest of the league, which made it funny when Beane laments the same thing in the movie) by other teams. Clearly it has a narrative it wants to tell. I'm not going to quibble over stuff like that. As I said, it's really an excuse to let Pitt be Brad Pitt. I'll take that. Yeah...
Monday, July 31, 2017
Midnight in Paris (2011)
rating: ****
the story: A Hollywood screenwriter working on his first book imagines life was idyllic in 1920s Paris, and then somehow ends up there.
what it's all about: Admittedly, my experience with Woody Allen is still shamelessly incomplete, loaded to a generous portion of his recent work while leaving his earlier films mostly unexperienced except for a so-long-ago viewing of Annie Hall that I have no clear memories of it now, but I would have to say Midnight in Paris is one of my favorites, and I think it will stand as one of his signature artistic statements.
Owen Wilson grafts his natural charm to the classic Woody persona of the anxious would-be lover seeking answers to life's questions. I never really get why critics complain about the Woody persona. I loved Kenneth Branagh's take in Celebrity. Technically, Will Ferrell plays it in Melinda and Melinda, although it might be difficult to see as he takes a backseat to Radha Mitchell. You might even say Colin Farrell plays it, in tortured fashion, for Cassandra's Dream. Wilson is such an amiable talent it's sometimes easy to take him for granted (apparently about a decade past he struggled with real despair for perhaps that very reason), but Midnight in Paris owes a huge debt to him. It wouldn't work nearly as well without him accepting the lunatic premise that never really attempts to explain itself, and is all the better for it. Who else could sell it with such casual acceptance?
The show is stolen, however, by a pair of supporting performances, of diverging length. Adrien Brody, who ended up being taken for granted after his Pianist breakthrough, is a hugely amusing Salvador Dali (!), who seems to have stepped out of a Wes Anderson movie, maybe. You can watch the movie for the pleasure of Brody's Dali alone. You can do that, but you'd be missing Corey Stoll's breakthrough performance as Ernest Hemingway, who is basically the exact opposite of Woody Allen. The sheer bravado of it is breathtaking. Stoll, who has continued supporting and television roles since giving us his Hemingway, commands the screen and translates all over again the charm of a writer almost better known for his personality than his prose. But he'll make you want to read the prose, too.
Together, Brodi and Stoll make mincemeat of Michael Sheen's blowhard intellectual, who's so busy trying to impress everyone, including Wilson's would-be bride Rachel McAdams, cast in the classic Allen archetype of the lover who just doesn't understand and doesn't even care to try, that it's kind of tragic for Sheen, and McAdams, because they continually disappoint through no fault of their own, because they can't possibly hope to contend with them. Isn't that kind of the point? Wilson thinks life can't get any better than his romantic notions of the past, and so to have the two most important figures of the present be so utterly charmless in comparison, that's storytelling.
So ironically, Marion Cotillard leads the rest of the cast as the would-be replacement lover Wilson discovers suffers from the same pains he does, only she's from the 1920s and wishes she were some thirty years earlier still...Cotillard is a master of fading into her mysterious beauty (there's a great bit about that and Pablo Picasso in the movie), ethereal, the elusive connective tissue that holds the whole thing together. Toss in Kathy Bates and a pre-Loki Tom Hiddleston, and you have a cast that's rewarding on every level, that knows exactly what it needs to accomplish, and rewards repeated viewings. I mean, Hiddleston in 2011 had Midnight and Thor released within weeks of each other. He plays F. Scott Fitzgerald in Midnight, the first famous face Wilson meets, handily introducing him to Stoll's Hemingway. Hiddleston's scenes are also stolen by a crackerjack portrayal of Zelda Fitzgerald, but watching them again, knowing what was about to bloom for Hiddleston, is to love the quirks of fate.
It's a movie that's ridiculously easy to like, and the more you watch it the more you like it. And it's got a big statement to make, too, about living in the past, and how it's both not as good for you as you might imagine, and that it is as good for you as you might imagine. Wilson undeniably benefits from his experiences, even as his personal life crumbles, and he learns there's a limit to the experience. But then, he also meets a local Parisian, a contemporary who shares the more grounded outlook he cobbles together, or perhaps was always there. I mean, he remains enchanted by Paris itself throughout the movie. Ironically it's Steen and McAdams who keep presenting a warped view of Wilson's fixation on the past. That's another reason Wilson is perfect for this movie, because he's able to let their negativity slide off of him without unneeded drama to further complicate things.
And that's really the spirit of Midnight in Paris, the ability to enjoy itself, say something profound, and move on.
the story: A Hollywood screenwriter working on his first book imagines life was idyllic in 1920s Paris, and then somehow ends up there.
what it's all about: Admittedly, my experience with Woody Allen is still shamelessly incomplete, loaded to a generous portion of his recent work while leaving his earlier films mostly unexperienced except for a so-long-ago viewing of Annie Hall that I have no clear memories of it now, but I would have to say Midnight in Paris is one of my favorites, and I think it will stand as one of his signature artistic statements.
Owen Wilson grafts his natural charm to the classic Woody persona of the anxious would-be lover seeking answers to life's questions. I never really get why critics complain about the Woody persona. I loved Kenneth Branagh's take in Celebrity. Technically, Will Ferrell plays it in Melinda and Melinda, although it might be difficult to see as he takes a backseat to Radha Mitchell. You might even say Colin Farrell plays it, in tortured fashion, for Cassandra's Dream. Wilson is such an amiable talent it's sometimes easy to take him for granted (apparently about a decade past he struggled with real despair for perhaps that very reason), but Midnight in Paris owes a huge debt to him. It wouldn't work nearly as well without him accepting the lunatic premise that never really attempts to explain itself, and is all the better for it. Who else could sell it with such casual acceptance?
The show is stolen, however, by a pair of supporting performances, of diverging length. Adrien Brody, who ended up being taken for granted after his Pianist breakthrough, is a hugely amusing Salvador Dali (!), who seems to have stepped out of a Wes Anderson movie, maybe. You can watch the movie for the pleasure of Brody's Dali alone. You can do that, but you'd be missing Corey Stoll's breakthrough performance as Ernest Hemingway, who is basically the exact opposite of Woody Allen. The sheer bravado of it is breathtaking. Stoll, who has continued supporting and television roles since giving us his Hemingway, commands the screen and translates all over again the charm of a writer almost better known for his personality than his prose. But he'll make you want to read the prose, too.
Together, Brodi and Stoll make mincemeat of Michael Sheen's blowhard intellectual, who's so busy trying to impress everyone, including Wilson's would-be bride Rachel McAdams, cast in the classic Allen archetype of the lover who just doesn't understand and doesn't even care to try, that it's kind of tragic for Sheen, and McAdams, because they continually disappoint through no fault of their own, because they can't possibly hope to contend with them. Isn't that kind of the point? Wilson thinks life can't get any better than his romantic notions of the past, and so to have the two most important figures of the present be so utterly charmless in comparison, that's storytelling.
So ironically, Marion Cotillard leads the rest of the cast as the would-be replacement lover Wilson discovers suffers from the same pains he does, only she's from the 1920s and wishes she were some thirty years earlier still...Cotillard is a master of fading into her mysterious beauty (there's a great bit about that and Pablo Picasso in the movie), ethereal, the elusive connective tissue that holds the whole thing together. Toss in Kathy Bates and a pre-Loki Tom Hiddleston, and you have a cast that's rewarding on every level, that knows exactly what it needs to accomplish, and rewards repeated viewings. I mean, Hiddleston in 2011 had Midnight and Thor released within weeks of each other. He plays F. Scott Fitzgerald in Midnight, the first famous face Wilson meets, handily introducing him to Stoll's Hemingway. Hiddleston's scenes are also stolen by a crackerjack portrayal of Zelda Fitzgerald, but watching them again, knowing what was about to bloom for Hiddleston, is to love the quirks of fate.
It's a movie that's ridiculously easy to like, and the more you watch it the more you like it. And it's got a big statement to make, too, about living in the past, and how it's both not as good for you as you might imagine, and that it is as good for you as you might imagine. Wilson undeniably benefits from his experiences, even as his personal life crumbles, and he learns there's a limit to the experience. But then, he also meets a local Parisian, a contemporary who shares the more grounded outlook he cobbles together, or perhaps was always there. I mean, he remains enchanted by Paris itself throughout the movie. Ironically it's Steen and McAdams who keep presenting a warped view of Wilson's fixation on the past. That's another reason Wilson is perfect for this movie, because he's able to let their negativity slide off of him without unneeded drama to further complicate things.
And that's really the spirit of Midnight in Paris, the ability to enjoy itself, say something profound, and move on.
Monday, May 25, 2015
2011
Viewed/Ranked
- Warrior
- The Adjustment Bureau
- Source Code
- Midnight in Paris
- The Tree of Life
- London Boulevard
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
- Green Lantern
- Fright Night
- Immortals
- The Way Back
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Bridesmaids
- Larry Crowne
- The Muppets
- Cowboys & Aliens
- Super 8
- Horrible Bosses
- Sucker Punch
- Hanna
- Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol
- X-Men: First Class
- Fast Five
- HappyThankYouMorePlease
- The Conspirator
- Hugo
- The Artist
- Mr. Popper's Penguins
- The Debt
- The Hangover Part II
- Captain America: The First Avenger
- Unknown
- Thor
- Courageous
- Spy Kids: All the Time in the World
- Puss in Boots
- Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
- The Green Hornet
- Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil
- Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Atlas Shrugged: Part 1
Other Notable Releases
- 50/50
- Bad Teacher
- Barney's Version
- The Beaver
- Cars 2
- Colombiana
- The Company Men
- Conan O'Brien Can't Stop
- Crazy, Stupid, Love.
- The Descendants
- Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame
- Everything Must Go
- Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
- The Help
- Hesher
- In Time
- The Iron Lady
- J. Edgar
- Limitless
- Machine Gun Preacher
- Martha Marcy May Marlene
- Melancholia
- Miral
- Moneyball
- One Day
- Our Idiot Brother
- Real Steel
- Scream 4
- Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
- The Smurfs
- Take Shelter
- Tinker, Taylor, Doctor, Spy
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1
- War Horse
- Water for Elephants
- Young Adult
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)