socact-1 Reviews

Marley & Me (2008)

Surprisingly Good

[8/10 · 28 December 2008]

When I first saw the previews for Marley and Me, I thought, ugh, another desperate attempt by Jennifer Aniston to resuscitate her career. I used to be a huge Aniston fan back in the "Friends" days, but it's been years since I've seen any of her movies. And as for Owen Wilson, he always seemed like a goof who rode on the wave of his older brother's success. This movie proved me wrong on both counts.

Marley and Me is about a dog, definitely, but it's just as much about a man (John Grogan, played by Wilson), his wife (Jenny, played by Aniston), and his growing family. The film follows John from his wedding night to the peak of his journalism career a dozen years later, years that are chronicled in his weekly columns for a Florida newspaper. Marley, the lovable but horribly destructive yellow lab, enters his life as a puppy, in an attempt to prepare him and his wife for future children. The dog, as expected, tears apart the house, makes wild escapes, humps the dog trainer, and lovably terrorizes other people. But the film effectively intersperses those episodes with tender, sincere moments of human/dog bonding. Marley is there to comfort Jenny when her husband cannot, adjusts to the children as they grow older, and intrudes on the family's most private moments. He is a constant, and at times, annoying presence, but Marley underscores the emotional tone of the film without dominating it.

Similarly, both Wilson and Aniston deliver understated performances that convey the ups-and-downs of any marriage. While it is the bond between John and Marley that the film explores most deeply, Jenny provides the link between dog, family, and children. In the end, she realizes what Marley has become, and what he has always been, to the two of them. The film's overall tone - light, humorous, but at times very real - builds up to an ending that is surprisingly moving.

Marley and Me is a tender-hearted, easy-going film that will appeal to any dog-lover. But it will also, I think, appeal to anyone who can look back on his or her life and trace a common thread through each passing year. A beloved pet, like Marley, has that unique capability. I wish I could thank my own dog for that. But, as one of the children in the movie tearfully says, I'm sure he already knows.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

How Expectations Affect a Film

[8/10 · 24 December 2008]

I went to see Slumdog Millionaire based on the words of countless critics, Top Ten Lists, and awards season rumors. Hailed as one of the best films of the year by virtually every news source in the U.S., I had to see what all the fuss was about. So I took my dad (a guy fairly opposed to subtitles and films with a budget under $100 million), and we saw this film the day before Christmas, when Hollywood releases its arsenal of heavy-hitting Oscar contenders.

For me so far, 2008 seems to be the year of films not living up to expectations. Unfortunately, Slumdog Millionaire seemed to fit into this category, although this is not to say the film is a bad one. It has a compelling storyline, fantastic actors (young and old), adequate suspense, and compelling visuals. To elaborate, the story revolved around one boy's experience on India's version of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, whose success stems from a lifetime of struggle, betrayal, poverty, and death. The film follows Jamal, the contestant, in snapshots of his young life in Mumbai, from his childhood in the slums to his seat in the Millionaire studio. It is a riveting sequence of events, which both define and challenge Jamal as he grows from a young boy to a young man.

At the center of the story is Jamal's relationship with his brother Salim and friend, Latika. He pursues her throughout the film, as she is lost and found, again and again. These three characters form the emotional center of the movie that culminates in the final scene, and for me at least, their chemistry held the story together. All of the actors playing Jamal, from age 5 through 18, depict a spirited, intelligent little boy whose innocence ebbs as the game show, and his childhood, progresses. It is a tragic, but powerful transformation.

Danny Boyle strings the scenes together with emotion, sensuality, and an innovative soundtrack. He really drew me in to the setting, a difficult feat when trying to bridge American prosperity with Indian poverty (and I especially enjoyed the dig on American tourists). But this film could not have taken place anywhere else, which was especially poignant in the scenes of Mumbai's citizen's watching Jamal on television.

Overall, Slumdog Millionaire was a solid film that offers a refreshing storyline, compelling young actors, and capable direction by Boyle. But I can't see it as an Oscar contender, perhaps for its lack of anything truly exceptional. In a year, though, of superhero franchises, tired sequels, and over-budget epics, I will gladly take a little film like this one that captivates the masses, as Jamal did, with its humility and simplicity.

Twilight (I) (2008)

Really Grew on Me...

[7/10 · 21 November 2008]

To preface this review, I read all four Twilight books in one weekend (last weekend, actually) when I picked the first one up at the airport, and could not put it down. I zipped through the other three and went to the midnight screening on opening day. To say the least, I was captivated by Twilight (and I'm in my 20s...).

I was anxious to see the movie because, like so many other people, I felt really invested in Bella and Edward's story. Not only that, but I love the vampire premise - it just never gets old, especially when you put a new spin on it, as Meyer did in her books. The events of each book really ran together for me, so in a way, I felt like a non-Twilighter coming into this film. I really didn't care if the movie deviated from the book - in fact, I was kind of hoping it would, since you can't expect a book to translate directly to the screen. I heard a lot of serious Twilight teens complaining about "major things" missing when I left the theater, but I honestly didn't notice any major omissions.

Overall, the film was better than I expected (based on previews, I expected it to be extremely cheesy, low-budget, and awkwardly filmed). It definitely grew on me as it went on, especially Pattinson's performance. His introduction was extremely awkward - not sure if that was Hardwicke's fault or Pattinson's acting. In any case, as soon as he settled into his character, he was absolutely captivating. Stewart plays a great brooder, and she certainly did that here. I loved the scenes with her father; in my opinion, these were some of the gems of the movie.

The romance between Edward and Bella, which was obviously the crux of the film, was fueled by their chemistry, but not much else. Where was the development?! I really wish Hardwicke or the screenwriter or somebody had taken more time to delve into the roots of their relationship. It all just happened way too fast. I feel like this happened because of the James story, which to me was almost completely unnecessary (yeah, I know, it's a big part of the book and obviously needs to be here). But even so, the film would have been a more moving romance, and probably a more poignant, emotional film, if that cheesy, goofy subplot hadn't existed.

Hardwicke dealt exceptionally well with teen angst, which was evident in the high school shots. Unfortunately, she really struggled with the vampire side of things. I have to put most of the blame on the director because the characters were all spot-on, very well-acted and well-cast. I also think a higher budget would have done wonders for this movie, and I'm hoping that becomes a reality for the sequel. The special effects were embarrassingly bad, and nearly ruined the movie.

Overall, I enjoyed "Twilight" for what it was - a romance that probed the timeless dilemma of wanting what you can't have (and despite Meyer's Mormon beliefs, this whole series is basically a metaphor for sex). It makes for an interesting, compelling story, and I expect more from the sequels, because the potential is certainly there.

Days of Heaven (1978)

I Must Be Missing Something Huge

[2/10 · 12 April 2008]

I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.

Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.

The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.

Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.

Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.

As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.

I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me.

Into the Wild (2007)

Hmm

[6/10 · 1 October 2007]

When I heard this movie was being made, and then later, heard it was being made by Sean Penn, I cringed at the prospect. The story of Chris McCandless is a sad, almost incomprehensible one, that simply fell into the hands of a very capable writer in Jon Krakauer. In some ways, Krakauer single-handedly developed the controversy of Chris' life that made the story so compelling. It's not surprising that a Hollywood hothead like Sean Penn would come along and make the story his baby. But, of course, I can't blast Penn too much, since he is clearly a talented actor and director.

That said, "Into the Wild" is a beautifully-written, albeit arrogantly-directed movie. The book is paper-thin; why in the world did Penn feel compelled to make the movie well over two hours long?? It's a shame, because the length of the film diluted its poignancy and power. I kept thinking to myself, when is this guy going to (finally!) get to Alaska?! Also a shame, because Chris' final social interaction, with Ron Franz, was also the most touching one.

I can't see how someone could fully appreciate the movie without reading the book (as evidenced by people who, thinking it was some kind of comic relief, were laughing in the theater when Chris was shouting to the sky how hungry he was). I don't want to make my own conjectures about Chris' sanity, motivations, or responsibility; you're supposed to judge that for yourself. And in some ways, your impression of Chris will probably echo your feelings about the film.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

Slowly but undeniably arresting

[9/10 · 3 January 2006]

When I left the theater after seeing this film, I hardly thought I had seen an exceptional movie, much less the best picture of the year. But "Brokeback Mountain" has a way of sinking in as the hours, and then the days, pass by. I found myself talking about it twenty minutes before midnight on New Year's, screaming in my boyfriend's ear over deafening music and drunken conversations. It's that kind of movie.

The film is blessed with a gifted cast who play their parts to perfection. I admit I expected to see the Heath Ledger I knew from "A Knight's Tale," but fortunately that guy is nowhere to be found. Ledger infuses a subtlety and sadness into Ennis Del Mar that brings the movie to a whole other level. Unlike Jack Twist, Ennis seems to accept the facets of his existence that make him different, despite every attempt to blend into a non-descript, ordinary life. Jake Gyllenhaal, the man with a plan, delivers a moving and convincing performance as Ennis' lover. His forwardness serves as a perfect complement to Ennis' taciturn reluctance. And Michelle Williams, as Ennis' wife, finally has the opportunity to prove her acting talents - which were evident in Dawson's Creek - to a larger and more receptive audience.

"Brokeback Mountain" is a poignant, simple, and beautiful love story. Walking into the theater, I might have injected "gay" somewhere in that description, but this film transcends gender and sexuality. Yes, the story is a sad one, but I never felt terribly sorry for Ennis or Jack. They found something that most people spend their lifetimes searching for. Perhaps "Brokeback Mountain" will be regarded as a landmark "gay film," a sign of enlightened attitudes and modern times. And maybe it is that. But even without the cultural hype surrounding this film, the love story that defines the characters and shapes their lives is a universal theme. Ennis and Jack wanted only what they couldn't have. And who can't relate to that?