Movie Tab II

Movies don't scare me easy but you can bet your McNuggets that my soup gets boiled on the rare occasion that one does succeed in breaking down my defenses. What? Soup? McNuggets? I don't understand me anymore but I'll blame that on the movie which was a very scary watch despite the fact that I went in with a general idea of what was going to happen thanks to a few remarks by people had already seen it. I'll deal with them later...

The film takes place on a night where the rain is coming down so hard that you wish you had that underwater car that James Bond had in The Spy Who Loved Me. On this night a series of unfortunate coincidences and accidents land a group of people at a crappy looking motel that makes the Bates establishment look like the Marriott. It is here at the motel where the group of people realize that something very sinister is taking place after one of their number is gruesomely murdered. Creepy stuff. As is custom in the horror genre, things get worse from that point on.

Identity was directed by James Mangold who continues to impress me with his work. One of the film's great achievements is its atmosphere and for that I can't just give credit to Mangold but everyone who worked behind the scenes on the set. The look of the motel rooms were perfect. Creepy yet still your average motel room. The exterior scenes must've been a "B" to shoot with all that water and that hard work paid off because many of those scenes gave me chills with their balance of aeshetic creepiness which was provided by those people behind the camera and then that deeper kind of creepiness which has everything to do with the actors and the story.

This movie was a lot of fun and it may be gimmicky but when a horror movie manages to be this scary it almost doesn't matter how it got there. I'm not happy I put off watching this for so long but I am happy that I only finally decided to watch it at one in the morning by myself. If you do intend to watch this, which you should, make sure to wait till the sun goes down and turn off the lights.

Sean Penn has been on my nerves for years now and most of Gus Van Sant's work makes me want to pull my hair out. I had not intended to watch this movie in theaters but once it was nominated for Best Picture I figured I had to watch it. Despite its critical acclaim I still went in expecting to hate it. I'll be honest, I almost wanted to hate it. If not only to finally cross every future Gus Van Sant movie off my to-watch list. While watching the movie my feelings were mixed throughout but when the end credits rolled I was definitely pleased with what I had just watched.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay person elected to major public office. I'm young and knew nothing of the man until news hit the wire some time ago that Bryan Singer and Gus Van Sant were fighting over the script or something like that. Seemed like a good idea for a movie but I didn't think either of them were up to the task of breathing life into it. I was wrong. So sue me. Van Sant and the screenwriter, Dustin Lance Black (both gay) obviously cared a lot about this project and you can see their heartful efforts on-screen. Visually, Van Sant did a brilliant job transforming what could've been a fairly conventional bio-pic into something a bit more interesting. His methodical use of real news footage works to great effect and the sporadic film switches to what looks like 16mm were also very effective. Dustin Black takes good care in making sure we get to know all the players that helped Harvey to office but I don't think he pays enough attention to the background and development of Harvey Milk, himself. The early years of his political activism are too quickly skimmed over in my opinion and I don't think Black gives us enough scenes showing why Harvey Milk dives so headlong into his new life on the west coast and into politics. Maybe I'm thinking of this too much like any other movie and not enough like it's non-fiction.

My biggest problem with the movie also somehow manages to be the reason I feel it works so well. Dustin Black, at least it appears to me, puts the issue of the picture, gay rights, ahead of the importance of the story and the characters. That bothered me a bit because of course I want to hear a bit more about the story, the history, the characters, but that creative decision works on an emotional level. I'm not gay but the movie's main focus on gay rights helped me care more about the characters and their struggle than I may have cared if the script had taken another approach.

The acting here is very good across the board. At least for the most part. Sean Penn, talented self righteous bastard that he is, turns in one of his best performances here and doesn't take the acting liberties with the role that I feel he took in his over-the-top turns in films like Mystic River and 21 Grams. No, this was an absolute top notch job on his part. James Franco and Josh Brolin deliver my other two favorite performances in the film. Granted they're given the two second best characters. The only miss in the cast, I think (not sure whether to blame the actor or the screenwriter) was Diego Luna as Harvey's possessive boyfriend. The character is incessantly annoying and Luna's performance is nails running across chalk. I don't know if either of those was intended but that's how I felt.

In the end though, I got way more nice things to say about Milk than I do meanie things and considering that people much smarter than me enjoyed it much more than I did, this is probably a flick you should catch while it's still playing in theaters. I actually intend to re-watch it sometime within the next couple weeks.

I was in a general state of "WTF?" when it was announced that The Reader would be nominated for Best Picture. I was unhappy, for sure. My beloved movie with the bat guy hadn't been recognized for it's greatness and I was in a fairly sour mood for... a little less than a day. Okay, so it wasn't the end of the world but I was still wondering how the hell The Reader was nominated. I decided to blame the Weinsteins, award whores that they are. After actually seeing the movie though I can't stay too mad at them. It's a pretty damn good movie. Enthralling, touching, and just a wee tad bit sad. Kay, I'm probably downplaying that last one.

The movie's story jumps back and forth through time but everything starts on a rainy day when a young German named Michael meets an older woman, Hannah (Kate Winslet) by chance and a few months later they start what seems to be a rather casual sexual affair. Many, many years after we can see that for Michael that time of his life is something he will always cherish with happiness and sullenly contemplate.

I'm not a big fan of movies that go straight for the emotional jugular. I thought going in that this was one of those. I'm glad to say I was proven wrong. While this is a very emotional movie, the film never seems to make tear-jerking its primary objective. Rather it seems intent on telling the story of a beautiful relationship and the deluge of moral dilemmas that followed for the two involved. The broken timeline by which this story unfolds is never confusing and doesn't feel like a gimmick. It may not seem like the type of narrative trickery that would fit in with a movie like this but it does because the movie likely would've bogged down at the point in the story where neither Kate Winslet or Ralph Fiennes are around. No offense to David Kross who plays the "Young Michael". He plays the role fairly well. The problem has more to do with his character who moves aimlessly through his life like the lost adolescent he is.

As I just touched upon, it's the performances of Winslet and Fiennes that make this movie such a success (aside from the great story). Winslet's performance is a subdued and tragic one. Pretty perfect in my opinion. I agree with the people who seem to be confused about her nomination as Lead Actress though. She's clearly a supporting character here and it would've made a lot more sense for her to have gotten the nod for Revolutionary Road. My guess is the difference maker was the nudity. That usually gets their attention. I won't complain too much 'bout that though. She's brilliant here and I hope she finally takes home a statue. Both Fiennes' performance and his character mirror Winslet's in some ways. Both are purposefully restrained and weathered by the passage of time and tough choices. Some really good stuff going on in front of the camera here.

Stephen Daldry, also responsible for previous Oscar "grubbers" like The Hours and Billy Elliot, directed The Reader. Nothing really fancy from him but he does a good job juggling the storylines and doing a proper job of portraying Germany as the drab place it must've been without totally robbing the people of that time of the vitality they must've had. Daldry earned himself a nomination for Best Director with this, and while I think the nod is for the most part undeserved, he certainly does a good job.

I highly recommend The Reader and seeing as how it's nominated for Best Picture I don't see any reason why you should pass up on it.