Here is the continuation of my list. We're getting into the ones that I enjoyed to some extent, although none of them may have been of the particularly memorable variety.
60. "Wristcutters: A Love Story": Through the first third or half of this film, I would have guessed that you wouldn't be seeing it for another few entries here. Unfortunately it seems to run out of good ideas about halfway through. It's too bad because the beginning strikes just the right balance of sadness and dark humor.
59. "Year of the Dog": On the plus side, Molly Shannon apparently can act. Her performance elevates the film even during its most uneven moments. Unfortunately, those moments pop up with disturbing frequency during the movie's second half, and the usually great Peter Saarsgard seems a bit lost as to what notes he should be hitting. Another film that was a bit disappointing given its promising beginning.
58. "Chalk": This mocumentary about a group of school teachers has its moments, and some surprisingly good performances, but several of the storylines grate and the film never really develops any real kind of flow. Interesting, but not really essential viewing.
57. "Death at a Funeral": There are definitely laughs to be had here, many courtesy of the underrated Alan Tudyk (best known as Wash from "Firefly" and Steve the Pirate from "Dodgeball"). Too many jokes fall flat, however, and one excrement joke is particularly painful. Overall its mildly entertaining, but not as funny as the trailer hinted it could be.
56. "Paris Je Taime": Many of this series of short films by acclaimed directors, all set in the titular city, work. Some work very well. Others, well, not so much. I'd recommend it, if only to see the visions of the diverse series of directors that took part, but keep in mind that the quality is uneven and the tones varied.
55. "Talk to Me": This Petey Greene biopic is pretty solid throughout, and both Don Cheadle and Chewetel Ejiofor give charismatic performances. For some reason, it just never really took off for me. It just didn't prove all that memorable. Not quite sure why. The pieces seemed to all be there.
54. "Rocket Science": First the good: This film does a better job of portraying high school policy debate in all its peculiarities than any other film I've seen (although the resolution seems aimed at supplying jokes and really is probably too narrowly framed). It also sadly, I must admit, does a pretty decent job with the debaters. The problem is the rest of the film only works in fits and starts. Pieces of it, including one act of vandalism, work beautifully. Others, well, not so much, which is disappointing since I really was looking forward to the film.
53. "La Vie en Rose": This film is worth seeing for Marion Cotillard's Oscar winning performance. It truly does live up to expectations. Unfortunately the rest of the film is so bizarrely structured that it manages to twist large swathes of itself into a muddled mess. If it hadn't insisted on jumping around so much in time, Cotillard might have been able to make this film a great one instead of just a decent missed opportunity.
52. "Paprika": An almost unclassifiable bit of dream-focused anime, it is visually memorable and several of the sequences border on genius. However, overall, it just didn't leave a huge impression on me.
51. "Ocean's 13": An entertaining diversion for sure (and an improvement over "Ocean's 12"), the film feels too been-there-done-that for it to advance far above this level. It's still the third best of the sequels I saw last year, however.
Up next, a mixture of pretty good family films, mixed bags and solid-but-unmemorable films.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
you've used the word "titular" in your last two posts. i don't think i've ever used that word before in my life. it sounds filthy.
Wow. I didn't notice that. And yes, I did dboule check to make sure that word meant what I thought it meant.
I keep wondering why so many Americans who write about LE VIE EN ROSE don't get Dahan's concept. He has said over and over that he did NOT want to do a biography (as we call them here, "biopic"). It's not only European to vary from strict chronology in literature, artistically it's also very French. Weren't they the guys who came up with impressionism? When I first saw this film in the theatre, I had no trouble at all getting what he was trying to say. Dahan and Cotillard both were focussed on showing a person'a life. Do you think about your life chronologically? Of course not; it bounces around. Have you seen any other of Cotillard's darker works, such as PRETTY THINGS or FURIA? You have to open your heart and mind and PAY ATTENTION. At present, I much prefer European films to American ones. They deal with real people in real situations. We make movies about cartoon characters and superheroes, or redo TV sitcoms and "action" movies (any entertainment using a lot of dynamite or car crashes). Everything is made for young boys (15-30); no wonder American women over 40 can't work in film, while Deneuve, Moreau and Ardant regularly work in French films. Want to see the difference between the two countries? Look at the clever French TAXI 1,2, and 3, which incidentally star Cotillard, and compare them to the US remake with Queen Latifah.
I have no problems with films that skip around with chronology. I just didn't think that it was done effectively. Maybe I missed it, but how did the time jumping really assist the film thematically or emotionally? If the jumping has a purpose, I like it. I'm actually not a huge fan of the conventional biopics, but if they have a central performance as good as Cotillard's they can at least derive some power from that. Here the structure, in my opinion, added little while undercutting the power of her performance. Explain to me what I'm missing here.
While I admit I haven't seen as many European films as perhaps I should, I've seen my share. (As far as French films are concerned, I remember particularly enjoying "Kings and Queen," which had the kind of emotional power that "La Vie en Rose" only had in fits and starts). My No. 1 from last year also is hardly an American blockbuster.
Steve -- you're stirring up controversy, way to go!
Personally, I thought "Le Vie En Rose" was borderline incoherent, and just a chore to watch, not because it's "artistic" but because it's just not a well-written film. And really the non-linear storytelling is best at covering up the film's many shortcomings, most noticebly a lack of conflict.
Not a terrible movie. But not a good one. I don't care how many French awards it won.
Post a Comment