tragic_slider Reviews

Prime (2005)

Feels like real life on screen

[8/10 · 25 November 2006]

I happened to catch the second half on HBO one night. I saw the entire movie a few nights later. I could easily watch it through again -- I was really drawn into the movie. I had to look it up on IMDb just because I was thinking about it so much.

There's a lot of negative reviews here, much more than the movie deserves. Movies are like people -- some you despise, many leave you indifferent, and some just really *click*. My roommate came back from "Saw III" hyper and proclaiming it the "BEST movie EVER!!!" -- I can guarantee you he wouldn't care for this. "Prime" also doesn't have any of the typical emotional manipulations found in your average rom-com. It makes do with much subtler if still dramatic material. For example: the meeting between Rafi and David is low-key, slightly awkward, nothing like, say, the Ferris wheel scene in "The Notebook". Ryan Gosling threatening suicide to get a date is certainly entertaining, but it also leaves me slightly detached, too aware this is a story for my viewing pleasure.

"Prime" is the anti-"Grease". There's nothing STYLIZED about it; no fairy-tale ending. If you can do with such accoutrements you'll be sucked in, especially if you can relate to the very upper-middle-class New York viewpoint that permeates it. Another reviewer was quite insightful in comparing it to "Annie Hall".

As for the relentless disparagement of Bryan Greenberg in the male lead: you've got to be kidding me!!!! He doesn't play the role the way, say, a young Al Pacino would play it. His persona is understated, relaxed almost to the point of passivity, slightly unsure, sarcastic and naive and vulnerable all at once. Completely believable as a 23-year-old who would appeal to and be attracted to a 37-yr-old divorcée. A more typical male lead his age wouldn't be dating Uma Thurman, he'd be charming Natalie Portman or Jessica Alba. Take the scene where he's trying to connect with the stoic doorman -- I totally cracked up and at the same time couldn't help but admire how true-to-life it felt. Everything about that scene bespoke an upper-middle-class 20-something living with his grandparents and lacking direction.

Not to mention that the intimacy between Rafi and David felt so natural that I felt convinced that Uma and Bryan had something off-screen during filming. The way they looked at each other, shared each other's space... the lust didn't seem acted, I'll put it that way.

To Ben Younger: despite all the people out there who don't get it, there are some of us who do. You really did an amazing job, and I doubt I'll ever forget "Bubbe" knocking herself with that frying pan... Lol.

Wedding Crashers (2005)

Hilarious for some

[8/10 · 12 March 2006]

I had an absolute blast at this movie.

However, after reading some other comments I am unsurprised that a minority of other viewers thought this was absolute drivel. The central premise, that a couple of toxically insincere and cynical guys can win over hordes of children, old folks, and beautiful women, is inherently offensive to some. If you can get over that and enjoy them for their candid banter and deep friendship with each other, enjoying the rest of the movie is a piece of cake.

Vaughn absolutely makes this movie hilarious while Wilson grounds it. The balance between them makes this a more Wilder-esquire comedy rather than the zanier Frat Pack offerings such as Zoolander and Anchorman. Granted a lot of outrageous stuff happens but the characters themselves are less cartoonish than in many other guy-oriented comedies. For me, that makes this film a better and more lasting opus.

The "surprise appearance" near the end of the film was funnier in theory than in practice, but I want to commend the actor who played the Evil Boyfriend of Rachel McAdams for his ultra-intense characterization. He may not have had much in the way of funny lines but he has just as much watchability factor as Vaughn and outclasses Wilson. Keep an eye out for him in the future.

With the exception of a dragged-out, overly serious denouement, this movie is TIGHT. As an example of true friendship I can think of few that can best it.

The Rainmaker (1997)

Vastly under-appreciated film

[9/10 · 12 March 2006]

This movie is not a movie that makes you think. It's not arty, there are no Corleones, there's really no issues to ponder long after the credits have stopped rolling. Instead it's a human drama that uses a courtroom battle as its backbone, but the entire body is the honestly-told if ultimately remarkable of a greenhorn lawyer trying to make a life for himself after law school. Like the more recent "Garden State" the movie is far more interesting than one would initially expect.

I recently read the Grisham novel that the screenplay was adapted from and was impressed by the memorable cast of the characters. The corrupt-and-loving-it Prince and Bruiser, Deck Shiflett as the skeezy "paralawyer" who scrapes out a living with an amusing lack of self-consciousness, the bitter-tempered first judge and his pioneering, biased black successor, the politely patronizing and puffed-up Legal Titan Leo Drummond, Cliff and his straight-from-Deliverance hillbilly family, lonely and slightly bossy Miss Birdie, chain-smoking Dot and her addled husband, all of them set a standard for memorable but believable characters.

Yet the movie is itself a cut or two above the original material. The extended cast does a hands-down fantastic job of bringing each character to life. First billing has to go to Danny Devito for transforming Deck from Rudy's unscrupulous and ugly sidekick in the novel, into a more take-charge and casually hilarious partner. Just take a look at the scene where he leads Rudy into the hospital or when he's giving out his card to the kids in Dot's neighborhood. But that's just one of about twenty stellar acting jobs. The extended cast includes Danny Glover, Jon Voight, Claire Danes, Mickey Rourke (yes!), Virginia Madsen, and a handful of other talented but lesser-known actors who show their absolute best through the skillful lens of Coppola.

Besides the stellar job by the cast, the story is tweaked to absolute perfection. Whether it's the Coppola magic or an excellent adaptation and editing job, I see a transformation similar to his triumph with "The Godfather": an absorbing but complex and sometimes rambling story is condensed into its absolute essence. Not a single shot is out of place.

Something else struck me about this adaptation -- it reminds me of Peter Jackson's LOTR in the way comic moments are used to balance out the weightiness of the main plot. For example: in LOTR Merry and Pippin set off Gandalf's dragon fireworks, or in the second movie Gimli can't see over the parapet towards the advancing Uruk-hai, or in the third movie Sam and Gollum have their argument over the proper preparation of rabbits and 'taters and Gandalf instructs Pippin to keep his big mouth shut before they enter the hall of Minas Tirith. Likewise "The Rainmaker" has its little touches of humor as well, from the sardonic lawyer jokes in Rudy's voice-over, to the scene where Deck fake-helpfully hands over Drummond's lost shoe after he's been assaulted by an angry juror, to Rudy's red-faced apology to the car accident victim in traction whom he has accidentally jostled, to Madsen's laconic yet particularly devoted husband Bert. ("Guess who DIED last night?" "...Do you ever sleep?") There is anxiety during Kelly's return to her house, the suspense of the bug showdown, the pathos of Rudy's final speech: all these combine with the lighter moments to balance each other like a film version of Pickapeppa sauce.

Who could have ever guessed that a Grisham novel could be so perfectly adapted to the screen?! Just try watching the "Pelican Brief" afterward for comparison. My hat is off to Coppola, his cast, and everyone else who contributed to this understated masterwork.

A History of Violence (2005)

Uneven plot, but with some great acting

[5/10 · 10 March 2006]

I was excited when I sat down to see this movie. But then I was excited to see "The Usual Suspects" as well. An hour and a half later I walked out disappointed.

As the story of unassuming Midwesterner Tom Small and his family, the film starts out with a reassuring warmth and attention to detail. By the end of the film, the tone has morphed into a Steven Seagal flick, complete with a battle royale in a mansion that wouldn't be out of place in "Scarface". The central theme of AHV seems to be that violence is inescapable everywhere, even in the most Mayberry-esquire of quiet towns, so at what point of aggressiveness can we blame those who out-brutalize the predators to protect others and themselves?? An interesting idea, perhaps, but one that is handled clumsily and with a certain lack of direction in this instance. As a "man with a past" story it fails utterly, practically the whole story given away as soon as the scar-faced Ed Harris sits down at Tom's diner (accompanied by two equally cheery dark-suited companions) and addresses him with mixed familiarity and contempt as "Joey". The only question that remains is how the future of violence will play out.

BEGIN SPOILER DETAILS The central conceit of the film is that a brutal tough from the streets of Philly, a man who apparently delighted in cruelty and took out an enemy's eye with barbed wire, can transform himself into a laconic family man without any hint of his former life in his new personality. The further the story went, the more irritated I became with soft-voiced Viggo Mortensen as Tom/Joey. Viggo plays a convincing Tom Stall but never once shows the raw aggression and dominance that mobster Joey must have had. Further stretching the imagination are his perfectly maintained ninja-skills (looks like Walker, Texas Ranger led some workshops in Philly back in the day). What an utterly poor decision in casting.

Speaking of which, the family dynamic is generally tin-eared. The interaction between Tom and his son lacks any sense of connection between them, just as the two sex scenes with Maria Bello seem oddly contrived. It's the supporting characters who give the movie life, with particularly magnetic performances by Ed Harris and William Hurt as acquaintances from Tom's past life. (Seeing a mild, bespectacled Hurt at the Academy Awards made me do a double take -- what a remarkable transformation he pulled off in his thoroughly menacing eight minutes on screen.) Some people may complain about the graphic violence but to me that was one of the movie's most redeeming qualities. The ugly, final consequences of violence are not shied away from. On the other hand the family themselves are transparently designed to be our protagonists as they progressively rip through two armed robbers, a sneering bully, three goons, and a houseful of mobsters without much hesitation. (I can see the script now: "Conflicted Hero gives the camera a troubled look at having to resort to violence. Conflicted Hero then does a backward roll out of danger and gives it to them with both barrels.") The recipients of these respective beatdowns are so clearly Bad Guys that they might as well be wearing name tags announcing them as such.

"The Matrix" and "Fight Club" both had the conceit of an Everyman who was actually a superhero/bad-ass underneath once he let himself free of the shackles of his mind. Despite this pandering both were fantastic movies. AHV tries the same trick but is tripped up by a lack of direction and outrageous inconsistencies.