Review: Cloverfield (2008) ***
Ruh-roh
As Cloverfield begins with a distant, rhythmic booming sound, a title informs us that we’re about to see footage taken from a camera recovered near the area “formerly known as Central Park.” One wonders what happened to the park and, more importantly, the city around it. Since this is a monster movie, it surely can’t be good for the people of New York. The question is: does it bode well for those of us in the audience who want to see a giant monster on the loose, stomping on innocent citizens and knocking the hell out of beloved architectural landmarks? The short answer: yes and no.
After the ominous opening, the film staggers to a creaky start while we spend 20 minutes “getting to know” a group of 20-somethings with whom we wouldn’t want to talk at a party for any longer than it took to establish that they weren’t going to sleep with us; people with names like Jason and Lily and Beth and Hud acting out some kind of soap opera involving a going away party and two friends who’d had sex with each other. When it comes to characters in monster movies, I have one simple rule: be interesting, be naked or be gone. These dimwits struck out on all three counts and I was already checking my watch and squirming in my chair praying for the shit to start hitting the fan 15 minutes in. You can call it a clever, suspense building, diversionary tactic if you want. I call it boring.
Just when I was getting ready to tune out completely, an unusual New York earthquake finally, mercifully interrupts the party. Soon, news reports start to come in of an oil tanker sinking in New York harbor. Fear and confusion set in as the partygoers try to find out what’s going on. Suddenly, watch-and-wait turns to run-and-hide as a huge explosion lights up the nighttime horizon and giant chunks of burning wreckage begin raining down upon the city. At last, we get the money shot from the trailer as the smoking head of the Statue of Liberty lands in the street with a clang. This isn’t an accident and it’s not some kind of terrorist attack. This is something worse.
That’s right, a big, nasty monster is attacking Manhattan. Nobody knows where it came from and nobody knows what it’s so pissed off about. We get only fleeting glimpses of it and all the information we have comes from a video camera held by one of the characters. There are no scientists standing around computer monitors surveying the situation and proposing solutions. There isn’t even a score on the soundtrack to let us know we’re watching a movie. There is only chaos, terror and carnage as we follow Fred, Velma, Daphne and the rest of the Scooby Gang in their attempt first to get out of Manhattan and then to get back into the city to rescue one of their own.
It’s a decent set up and it allows for several interesting set pieces. The best of these take place in a subway tunnel and another on the Brooklyn Bridge. A less successful sequence involves a half-toppled skyscraper that put me in the mind of 70s disaster flicks like The Poseidon Adventure and The Towering Inferno - for better and for worse.
Along the way, we find out the monster isn’t just a big angry dinosaur, it has a few tricks up its sleeve that seek to add new wrinkles to the genre. Unfortunately, without saying too much about it, the wrinkles are a little derivative of other monster movies that have come before and once the suprise quickly wears off, they feel like a gimmick.
As for the the shaky, first-person camerawork that is the movie’s calling card, it’s both a benefit and a liability. It added to the tension and confusion and lent the film a “you are there” feeling, but for me it was also annoying to watch. Your tolerance for this type of thing will go a long way to determining how well you like the movie. My suggestion: do not watch this movie with a hangover. Also, the illusion of reality was frequently broken as the filmmakers occasionally attempted to wedge in bits of exposition in order to move the story along. They tried to disguise it and make it look natural, but it felt forced.
It turns out there are plenty of other nitpicky details you could seize upon if you decide you really want to hate this movie. For starters, if the Statue of Liberty’s head just landed at your feet, would you stand around it in awe like a monkey from 2001 taking pictures with your cell phone to post on your Facebook page, or would you be running like hell in the opposite direction? Also, some very helpful military types turn up at the right time and the right place to keep the story going. It’s difficult to believe they would be so friendly in such a crisis situation and it’s the kind of thing that will piss you off if you choose to dwell on it. I chose not to for the most part.
Mostly, I liked the idea of a monster movie where you’re never given an explanation of what is happening or why, and the visceral filmmaking style certainly helped ratchet up the tension and highten the confusion, but I genuinely would’ve preferred a more straightforward approach: more carnage, fewer annoying people. Also, the liabilities of the hand-held camera gimmick, for me, nearly outweighed the benefits. Finally, at a sparse 85 minutes, I was hoping for a lean, mean, low-down and dirty monster picture. Tellingly, what I got felt like it was over 2 hour long. They could’ve easily lost 10 or 15 minutes at the beginning of the film and it would’ve made for a much better entertainment.
In the end, Cloverfield gets enough wrong to leave me wishing it was a better movie, but it also gets just enough right and provides a unique enough take on an old genre for me to recommend it to people who are drawn to this kind of thing. Though it feels like a missed opportunity, it’s still worth a look.
Cloverfield. USA 2008. Directed by Matt Reeves. Screenplay by Drew Goddard. Cinematography by Michael Bonvillain. Starring Michael Stahl-David, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, T.J. Miller and Mike Vogel. 1 hours 25 minutes. MPAA Rated PG-13 for violence, terror and disturbing images. 3 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Thanks for taking a bullet on this one, Craig. I suppose I have no choice but to knock back some dramamine and root for the monster here. Maybe I’ll pay to see something I want to see and then sneak into this one after.
I agree about the opening, which seemed to drag on too long establishing cardboard cut-out characters that needed no exposition. However, I know and have hung out with people like them, so maybe the characterizations aren’t that far off…
I didn’t mind the gimmick at all, but I hope it doesn’t become popular. Unless it’s used as part of the narrative or addresses the underlying theme of the film (like Cache), the technique comes across more as a crutch. I don’t think Cloverfield would be nearly as engrossing if it were filmed conventionally (esp. if it had scientists hunched over TV/computer monitors). God help us if we get another dozen films like Cloverfield.
The only big problem I had with Cloverfield was the monster’s final reveal. Not only did it undercut whatever terror theme the film had been trying to establish, but the CG rendering of the monster wasn’t that impressive, either.
If you want to hate the movie, Cloverfield will give you plenty of ammunition, but I think if you can turn your logic sensors off and just enjoy the ride, you’ll get your money’s worth.
But yeah, those first 20 minutes were brutal for me. A much better movie would’ve resulted if they just cut in with no explanation of who anyone was about 5 minutes before the crapstorm blows up. Forget the exposition and just hit the ground running.
The hand held stuff gave it a punch a more traditional movie wouldn’t have had. I also think it allowed them to go with a lower budget and that allowed them to take more chances and generally be more interesting. It had a down and dirty feeling that big studio summer tentpole product wouldn’t have had.
I agree about the reveal. It felt like they were pandering to the crybabies who just want a money shot. A friend that I saw it with suggested that the money shot he would’ve rather had was an overall panorama of the destruction of Manhattan. It would’ve been cooler and more powerful.
Also, I didn’t mention it in the review, but I really liked Michael Giacchino’s theme that played over the closing credits. It almost made me wish they’d taken a more traditional stab at the genre complete with Toho-like music.
Deep down I think this is the movie I reallyi wanted… something that would make me feel 10 years old again. This is not that movie and it never claimed it would be so really I have no business asking that.
I have to disagree W.J.-I’m picky about my monster reveals and I actually enjoyed Cloverfield’s, though you may be right about that final, dramatic money shot. I thought the (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER) helicopter’s eye view was going to be it. And maybe it should have been, but something about seeing that thing up close, during the day in an open space, I thought it was creepy. The CG didn’t seem bad to me at the time, but I think I was too busy trying to soak in what the thing looked like.
In terms of whether showing the monster dims the film’s impact or not, I say that with a film as shallow as Cloverfield, you just man up, show the monster, and give the crowd their money’s worth. If it was a deeper movie I think the less is more argument would be very valid.
Of course last year’s The Host was wonderful and they rubbed your face in the monster. I love when filmmakers break the rules.
The Host is an interesting comparison. After a little bit of a tease early on, the monster is in your face for the rest of the movie. Terrific for it’s unexpectedness.
As far as the CGI goes (and this applies to The Host as well), I’m still horribly old fashioned. A dude in a foam suit is still more convincing and tactile to me than the most elaborate computer effect.
Craig — I like that panorama of destruction idea; maybe include the monster running away from the camera and jumping into the Hudson River and swimming to Jersey to continue its rampage. :-P
The friend I saw it with was too nauseated by the camera shaking to care much about the rest of the movie. So, the Blair Witch Project approach to cinematography isn’t good for everyone.
Chuck — I had the same problem with The Host. I guess I just like my monsters to lurk in the shadows, so I don’t know I’m toast until they’ve already got me in their jaws.
When I said in the review not to watch this movie with a hangover, I was speaking from experience. Otherwise I think I would’ve handled it better.
You kid about New Jersey, but you KNOW there is going to be a sequel to this thing. Unfortunately, 10-1 they crap it up with a lot of explanation and exposition or some kind of stupid backstory. Count me out for the sequel.
W.J.-The idea of the movie ending with the monster broadening its rampage is a good one. Good call.
And I actually agree with both you and Craig about CG and using the audience’s imagination. But Cloverfield is all gimmick, so in that case I say bring on the monster. Though, again, I thought The Host was the best of both worlds, managing to subvert the genre, be scary and give us lots of monster mash.
I’m about out of here, so leave you guys with this before I walk out the door, CG aside what did you think of the monster design?
I liked the design. It was aquatic looking and there was an awkward quality to its movements that either meant it wasn’t used to stomping around on land….or it was only a baby…
I’ve seen a few reviews mention Lovecraft’s Cthulhu and there are definitely some similarities between the two (if you’re interested, there’s an illustration of it on Wikipedia).
Ditto to Craig’s assessment. I don’t think it was a baby, though, because it spawned those crawlers, which I assumed were baby Cloverfields. They might also be parasites from the monster, kind of like what pilot fish are to sharks.
I’m just glad the first 20 minutes involved Jeff Wells-esque squirming in your seat, Craig. I would hate to have been the only one.
What bugs me the most about this movie is the lost opportunity angle. If only the filmmakers have been interested in something more interesting than just a cheap thrill ride, this movie could have been something.
Aahaha…Wells-esque squirming. I’ll accept the comparison in this case because I really was pretty cranky.
Yes, the frustration of what could’ve been kind of snuck up on me later as I started thinking about the movie. I don’t think it would’ve taken much either, which makes it doubly frustrating.
I find myself heartily agreeing with everyone who has anything bad to say about it, yet I still found myself entertained.
“…be interesting, be naked or be gone.” LOL Interesting set of specifications you have there, my darling.
I haven’t talked to anyone off the net that’s seen this as of yet. But I think there are a ton of people that actually want to have a look at this thing.
I saw The Savages last night. (For the record, colour me unimpressed. Laura Linney – who I like a great deal – got in on name alone IMO. Prolly cuz people didn’t want to see Angelina get nominated. But it’s likely only one of many factors – & yeah, it’s my own personal theory. She was totally outacted AT EVERY BLOODY TURN by PSH & Philip Bosco. She was fine but not outstanding. But I did like the ending. Anyway…)
Due to a variety of unforeseen & particularly annoying circumstances, we were almost late & arrived about ten minutes before showtime. To my surprise, there was a fairly big crowd lined up & the three ticket windows were going gangbusters. ON A WEDNESDAY??? What the hell could be playing?
I glanced over & then I realized. The Savages started at 7:25. There was a showing of Cloverfield (one of many LOL) at 7:30.
And there you have it….
Serena, I’m tempted to agree with you about Linney, I don’t think she was outacted, its just that she’s boring. Why is she boring you ask? Because she’s been playing the same bored, over educated so and so that does this and that and may or may not come out of her funk for about the last ten years.
What happened to the sharp tongued Linney of Primal Fear? She needs to play a villian, a seductress, something. Charisma is not necessarily selling out!
Chuck, what you said is REALLY interesting. I think you’d made an exceptionally valid point.
I completely understand the need for a serious actor to do character work. Some people feel the need to utterly transform from role to role. If you have those kinds of capabilities, hell yeah, then use em. I certainly will if I ever get an opportunity to do more acting on a certain level. I have always had a huge admiration for chameleons. People that looked totally different from role to role. So much so that, until they’re “name” actors, you couldn’t even recognize them from project to project. Meryl would be the quintessential example of that.
Laura Linney is a good looking woman. Much more so when she’s blonde. Obviously she can’t be blonde consistently. She had to be extremely dowdy in Kinsey. But I didn’t really buy into that portrayal. She just didn’t do it for me.
I thought she was slightly better in The Savages. Now I do get that Wendy Savage is supposed to be attractive in a normal, down to earth sense. She’s a regular chick. She’s no femme fatale. She’s an aspiring playwright who’s doing the temp thing. But as I was looking at that wretched wig (which I do understand on an intellectual level is supposedly right for the character) I thought, does she really HAVE to look this bad? Did they really have to play her down to this extent?
(Incidentally, I did hear that one of the reasons Laura Linney made the final five was that she was out there actively with Tamara Jenkins for months on end. I guess there’s something to be said for campaigning.)
I have liked her tremendously in some things. I thought she was fabulous in You Can Count On Me. She really deserved a nod for that. She & Mark Ruffalo were perfectly convincing as brother & sister. The chemistry that they had was something rare & beautiful. I loved the fact that Sammy had been wild & that there were still traces of that behaviour to be found. She was impulsive enough to begin an ill fated affair with her married boss. But smart enough to end it & cagey enough to turn the situation to her own advantage when he attempted to fire her.
She & her brother had to deal with a family tragedy when they were very young. That loss impacted them for life. Sammy had married & divorced a classic bad boy & was rasing her son alone. She still acted out. She was still questioning & trying to find her way. But she was self sufficient as hell. If she got herself into a jam she knew exactly how to find her way out.
I admired that. She would only backslide so far. LOL I thought she was very warm & real.
Same thing for her Mary Ann in that Tales Of The City miniseries. That character was the classic “nice girl”. But Laura turned her into a fully fledged woman that you could relate to.
Chuck, I don’t think charisma is selling out either. You can be glamorous or sexy & still be a powerful woman. Michelle Pfeiffer is also a skilled character actor & she did The Fabulous Baker Boys.
I think Laura Linney has tremendous versatility. Maybe (like so many other people) she’s taking the best of what’s being offered to her. But I do follow your train of thought, Chuck – & I TOTALLY agree.
Maybe you should be an agent…?
Don’t get me started on The Fabulous Baker Boys, Michelle Pheifer nearly killed this young man when he encountered her in that and Batman Returns within weeks of one another. She was one of the first adult actresses that I was actively attracted to I think. I remember getting a Premiere with a close up of her lovely face and thinking that I was in love.
Linney is wonderful in You Can Count on Me, great picture all around. And I bought her in Kinsey, even though I didn’t care for that too much. She just needs to mix it up more, and yes, she is very sexy. I think her work in P.S. is actually some of her best recent output, but the picture itself is just another of those low budget movies, not bad, not good, everyone gets a hug at the end.
I love Linney so it pains me to agree her performance wasn’t the most interesting part of Savages. I don’t think it was her fault, it was the most boring role. PSH and Boscoe had most of the juicy bits.
This is more of a career achievement award. The woman is consistently good in a world where there just aren’t a ton of good parts for women.
“Mostly, I liked the idea of a monster movie where you’re never given an explanation of what is happening or why, and the visceral filmmaking style certainly helped ratchet up the tension and highten the confusion, but I genuinely would’ve preferred a more straightforward approach: more carnage, fewer annoying people. ”
Amen to that. As you say better than I do in my review, there is SO much potential left on the table in Cloverfield. How about multiple camera views, no monster sighting, or scarier scenes? When it comes down to it, the ONLY thing that sets it apart from the others is the filmmaking style, and that’s just not enough as far as I’m concerned. Apparently there’s talk of a sequel, but I think something would have been done differently to justify it, despite the box-office record.
Regarding Laura Linney – maybe I’m in the minority here, but when did she become everybody’s favorite actress? Don’t get me wrong, her Savages performance is nomination worthy, and I like her in You Can Count on Me, Kinsey, Squid, Mystic River, even Breach, recently, and as far back as The Truman Show. But I haven’t been blown away by anything, and this isn’t the first place I’ve seen people fawn over her. Am I missing something? I’ve probably seen her in about 10 roles.
In fact, I actually had to go back and check her credits, because as Serena and Chuck imply, her roles are a.) very similar, and b.) forgettable? She seems to do the same role really well, over and over. Kind of like the female Tommy Lee Jones. Alright that’s actually not a good comparison, but I can’t think of the person that originally came to mind.
Well, Daniel…LOL
I can’t speak for anyone aside from me but…
Laura Linney is not really at the top of my list. But she is someone I admire.
As to her apparent popularity, I think it’s likely cuz she’s accessible. She’s good looking in a non threatening way. I’m wiling to bet she probably reminds a lot of people of their kid sisters or girlfriends they had in college. She has some sensuality to her. But it’s fairly subtle. She’s not overwhelming or overt in any way. She’s obviously talented & hard working. So I think a lot of people think they “get” her.
Speaking of Ms. Linney & her filmography, I totally forgot about Mystic River. It’s no doubt cuz I hate it so much. Except for Sean Penn…& Laura. I know a lot of critics had a field day with that one. Saying that she really had no lines until the end…& then WTF???
But I thought that was BRILLIANT. You just see her around throughout the whole film. She never really says anything. Then, just as the film is about to end, she’s lying on the bed with Sean Penn & she channels Lady MacBeth while giving him that whole alpha male speech.
RIght out of left field & POW…
I really dug that. Even though I’m equally fond of Marcia Gay Harden, if they HAD to nominate a woman from MR, I wish it had been Laura. Marcia’s broad “park the car in Harvard yard” accent really got on my nerves.
That’s just my two cents, though…
Yeah, she’s sexy in a non-glam kind of way that’s very refreshing. She doesn’t usually do accents or have a lot of histrionics so she tends to not be as flashy as some, but I like her.
I’ll grant you Serena that the Lady MacBeth business brought the movie to life for once, but I still didn’t care for it. Maybe there was a purpose or a meaning to it that would be revealed if I saw the movie again…which I won’t.
And can somebody PLEASE explain Kevin Bacon’s wife to me once and for all?
Oh, that bloody business with Kevin Bacon’s wife…
It just infuriated me….
You never even see her – & he mopes around like a lump & you don’t even know what he’s thinking. Except that he’s missing her. And moping.
All I remember is this mouth with lipstick by the phone receiver. Repeatedly. Can’t remember if he kept calling her or she kept calling him. Or if they called each other. Didn’t he keep calling & then she hung up on him?
Oh, the whole thing was so utterly ridiculous. Was it bad editing or just horrible screenwriting? Did it make sense in the book? Was it even in the book?
Does it matter? LOL
DAMN, I hated that movie…
Rats, I was hoping finally someone could explain to me what I missed about the lipstick wife on the phone.
I really hated it too. I remember hearing such great things about it, and I think it was already nominated by that point and boy was I disappointed.
I think I’m the only one who liked Tim Robbins in it though…
I never read the novel, but the same guy wrote Gone Baby Gone right? Didn’t care for that either. And the next Scorsese picture…
I’m not a big Dennis Lehane fan. Gone Baby Gone is by far my favorite novel (and I liked the film rather well–it made my Top 25 of the year, I forget where at the moment, ahaha) of his but even that one has a few problems, there’s no question.
My least favorite novel of his is *easily* Shutter Island, though. The last two chapters are absolutely horrible. I mean, it’s like a crack-addled nine-year-old wrote the latter two chapters. The “twist” at the end was so insulting as to mar the entire experience of the novel and I pray to God on my knees that Scorsese is going to do something radically different because if he doesn’t… oh, man, I don’t know. I might scream in the cinema.
Cloverfield: I disliked it a great deal. Great call on the needless exposition, Craig. And I agree with Jeff that the filmmakers needed to go deeper but apparently it was never even an option, which doesn’t surprise me since this is J.J. Abrams, who’s quickly becoming one of the top hucksters in the entertainment biz.
Laura Linney: She’s kind of the female John C. Reilly or something. She doesn’t attract attention to herself, she plays solid character roles a great deal and many of these turns do appear to be roughly similar. Though she does show a great deal of range when she is asked to do so. I agree with Serena that her Lady Macbeth speech to Sean Penn felt like it, firstly, came from another film and secondly, a vastly more interesting one. To me, the heart of Mystic River, both the book and the film, is “the neighborhood” and how everything stays the same–Penn’s character has tried to “get out,” so to speak, but by the end, he’s back being the lowly ‘hood Irish hood he was before. While Mystic River fails in terms of execution many times, I still favor it over Million Dollar Baby because it feels more genuinely Eastwoodian: like Unforgiven, a tale of a truly wicked man, reformed, descending back into his wickedness.
Wow you guys really remember more of it than I do! My lasting memory is Sean Penn and Tim Robbins sulking around in between emotional outbursts. And then a really bad ending.
Dennis Lehane is the author of both, and the upcoming Shutter Island by Scorsese. Maybe Leo will salvage it, though I wish people would just give up on the Boston accent. I didn’t grow up there but I went to college at BU and have found hardly any movie to do the accent justice. GBG was pretty good, and Good Will Hunting. Go figure with the Afflecks. Otherwise they’re usually awful. Tom Hanks in Catch Me if You Can? Cringe.
I believe I read somewhere that Tom Hanks actually had a “Rhode Island accent,” and when I met a fellow from Rhode Island about a year ago (we spent a semester together in the same class) I was shocked at how identical his and the Hanks accent from that film were.
Eastwood’s output in this decade is going to age poorly. Well, maybe it already has.
I’m really worried about Shutter Island. GBG was ok, but I didn’t buy the ending AT ALL. And endings are a bitch. A bad one ruins all that came before it.
All Boston accents in movies should be confined to Afflecks, Damons and Wahlbergs.
I’m not sure I ever placed Hanks’ accent in the movie. He was just Square East Coast Guy, but Rhode Island makes a great deal of sense.
I really liked that movie by the way. Spielberg exercising a very light touch. It was breezy and fun and it introduced me to Amy Adams. And anything with Christopher Walken is always 37% better than it would’ve been without.
Absurd endings must be Lehane’s thing. I read Darkness, Take My Hand, another of the Kensey-Gennero books, a few months ago, and it has that same “what, wait a sec” reliance on coincidence that marrs Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone. Otherwise I enjoyed it.
I forgave Gone Baby Gone because it was a well paced detective movie that knew what it was with some juicy scenery chewing. Mystic RIver is another ponderous Clint Eastwood bore, and of course the critics couldn’t stop about it. I’m a Sean Penn fan but I didn’t buy him in that at all, I thought he was showing off, the best, most solid work in that film were Bacon and Fishburne, and I swear I’m not saying that to be contrary.
Re: Shutter Island, can Scorsese please, just to shake things up, HIRE A DIFFERENT LEAD. I like Dicaprio but he needs to embrace his gifts and stop fighting them. He’s a charmer, a Cary Grant, terrific in Catch Me if You Can, he ain’t fucking Robert De Niro (though he stood toe to toe admirably with the man in This Boys Life, still Dicaprio’s best work.) He is not a hardass. He was ridiculously miscast in Gangs and mildly miscast in The Departed. He was terrific in The Aviator, surprise, surprise, because its another charmer type role.
Also charmed in Blood Diamond, Titanic, and The Beach, to name a few off the top of my head.
I think Scorsese got himself in too deep and doesn’t know what to do without Dicaprio.
I agree about DiCaprio and Scorsese, Chuck–although I have to admit I never *quite* bought him as Howard Hughes, either. To me, their films together have progressively been significantly better than the previous outing (Gangs being quite disappointing; The Aviator being “good but not great” and The Departed being very strong, robust and much more in Scorsese’s wheelhouse). I’m rather worried about Shutter Island because DiCaprio doesn’t seem suited to the main role and I fear the ending enormously. But it’s Scorsese, so I’m cautiously optimistic in spite of the prevailing evidence. And it’s got Mark Ruffalo and Ben Kingsley just for starters, so you know there will be some fine acting.
DiCaprio’s best performance in my mind is Catch Me If You Can, a film I love greatly (it’s certainly one of Spielberg’s very most personal films, as well as being a great light tale) with his turns in The Departed (cast against type but for a combo of reasons he makes it work), What’s Eating Gilbert Grape? and This Boy’s Life. Blood Diamond had a good Bogartian vibe to it even if people (perhaps mistakenly?) liked to bash the accent (I personally didn’t have much of a problem with that)–it’s a case where his performance was actually better than the film in which it appeared.
Oh, Christ, I just know I’m going to be crucified for this…
But bear with me please. I love all of you but I do have a marked difference of opinion with a portion of people here.
I’ll begin…
Let me say off the top that I’m a huge Scorsese fan. I love Mean Streets, The King Of Comedy, After Hours, The Last Waltz & Casino. I’m rather fond of GONY & NYNY. But the ones that I adore without question are the films that I own: The Color Of Money, The Departed, GoodFellas, The Age Of Innocence & Alice.
On the other hand, I am not a Leo fan at all. For a child actor he was an absolute acting phenomenon. Like Alexander, I thought he was fantastic in This Boy’s Life (I’d be mightily impressed with any young dude that could take on DeNiro & live to tell about it) & What’s Eating Gilbert Grape. For quite some time after he really lost his mojo as far as I’m concerned. He went from being this adorable kid to a reasonably attractive young man that picked a lot of projects that didn’t actually seem to showcase him in any useful way. It was rather startling to comprehend that he didn’t have the limitless range that I had assumed.
With the one two punch of Blood Diamond & The Departed in 2006, I at last thought he lived up to his childhood promise.
Here’s where it gets dicey…
I think Chuck has excellent taste (he loves PTA after all) & he knows a great deal about film. But (unless I’m misinterpreting his words, which I may indeed be) we do part company on some of this.
Chuck feels that Leo is “a charmer” & compares him to Cary Grant. There are few that can live up to that juxtaposition & Leo ain’t one of them IMO. Georgie boy, sure. He has that classic elegance about him. I can’t think of anyone else (young or younger LOL) that fits that mold that’s currently working today.
Sometimes people get choked when I talk about this. But it’s all highly subjective anyway & simply one girl’s take.
*sigh*
In order to be cast in a Cary Grant type role you have to be drop dead gorgeous – & Leo just isn’t to me. There’s nothing wrong with him. I just think that he’s nice looking at best. I just wouldn’t buy him as suave, sexy or charming. Johnny Depp could play parts like that. Leo is just not believable to me in those particular roles.
I NEVER bought Leo as HH. I just didn’t. I thought he was glaringly miscast &b was never successfuly able to pull himself out of that hole. But he got nommed so I’m likely in the minority on that. (Interestingly enough, do you know who is the best HH I’ve ever seen? Tommy Lee Jones in that TV movie from the 70s. If you guys don’t buy that, I want you to find it, watch it & get back to me.)
I loathed The Aviator. I never got it for some reason. Of all the Scorsese films I’ve ever seen, it seemed the most unlike ANYTHING in his filmography. I couldn’t believe that Marty directed that. I found it tedious, long & insufferably boring. I saw it on New Year’s Eve with a boy I’d long had a thing for. Had a terrible headache & couldn’t wait to get out…&…um, celebrate.
I’ve all ready been pegged as a Blanchett hater, I know. But I’ll live. I think she’s incredibly overrated. I also think she’s one of the most unattractive women to ever grace the screen. So I can’t build up any good will for her. The fact that she won BSA for The Aviator (one of the truly insufferable & head scratching wins of all time) just boggles the mind. But if you need me to be balanced & fair, I will be.
I didn’t mind Blanchett in Oscar & Lucinda. I thought she was good in Veronica Guerin & she was excellent in NOAS (which I own). But she played Kate so BROADLY. It was much more of a caricature than an actual performance to me.
I fully expected to be critical of ANYONE playing my idol Ava Gardner. When Kate Beckinsale was cast I was really upset. They look nothing alike & I didn’t think she was particularly good in anything I’d seen her in. I had heard that Marty was trying to get CZJ. (Who would have been spectacular.) Beckinsale didn’t resemble Ava. But she captured her inner fire & her independent spirit & was much more than I could’ve hoped for.
The way of the future, my perfect ass…*snort*
I liked MDB (that’s all, though) but I was really rooting for Sideways in 2004.
However, my favourite films that year (two masterpieces as far as I’m concerned) were Closer & Dogville.
(I’m sure y’all could see that coming a mile away…LOL)
I was using Cary Grant as a lazy shorthand, I’m certainly NOT trying to imply that DiCaprio steals the legend’s thunder in any way whatsoever. My large point is that DiCaprio is a better surface performer. He’s wonderful in Catch Me as You Can (one of Spielberg’s best recent films, if only someone could please tell the man that he doesn’t have to make a 150 minute movie every time out of the gate.) and he’s wonderful in The Aviator, particularly the first portion.
I didn’t buy him as Hughes either. I took the film as Scorsese’s dreamy wanderlay through the Hollywood of yesteryear, and bought it on those terms. The film courts trouble toward the end when it begins looking for Rosebud, but the first two thirds are confident and engaging. I can tell its Scorsese if for nothing else than for the sheer cinema infused momentum on display.
Agreed that Clooney is the new Grant. But Serena dear, we need to talk about a few things: the Blanchett hate and the Dogville and Closer love. Yuck.
But any woman who was on the Sideways bandwagon is fine by me. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve had conversations with that refused to empathize with the Giamatti character at all. It distubred me a bit. At the Oscars I was a Sideways man all across the board, it’s a classic, and has since become one of my comfort food movies that I put in for inspiration whenever I find it lacking (alot).
MDB was hogwash. Total hogwash. With a really bum Hilary Swank performance.
I’m with you on nearly every detail Serena, but the Blanchett hate baffles me.
Awww…
You’ve lovely, Chuck. Truly. But I am a strong willed chick. There are some things I will NEVER change my mind about. But I’ll go through your intelligent, well thought out response point by point…
I thought you did mean something different than the obvious when you put Leo & Cary together. So you mean that Leo actually excels at lighter fare? I think that’s the point that you’re making.
I loathe Blanchett & there’s no going back. I can’t even bear to look at the woman. Personality can keep me interested on a certain level. But I don’t even like the broad in interviews. I found her a little bit interesting when she first emerged in the 90s. But she has long since worn out her welcome with me. To me, she’s like Paltrow. Only Palrow is even less attractive (& that’s really saying something) & has no discernable gift whatsoever. At least Blanchett has some talent. But she ain’t no Meryl. NO WAY. NO HOW.
As for The Sideways thing…
See, I love Paul Giamatti. I totally get his characters. They’re so finely drawn. I could watch him all day. I have a thing for intelligent men that are really funny. I’d date Paul G long before I’d date Leo. Seriously.
I think a lot of women had problems with Miles. He & his buddy were quite the pair. LOL I think some women jumped the gun & just assumed that the actions of both guys combined were rather misogynistic. I don’t readily jump to those kinds of conclusions.
Miles was deeply flawed. He had cheated on his wife. He saw the error of his ways much too late. So he was filled with regret & he was completely alone.
He also bought that Barely Legal magazine which didn’t win him many points with some viewers. But Payne draws sharp portraits of REAL people (large flaws & all) & some filmgoers want an easier, more fanciful experience. I guess another point of contention is the fact that Miles (an average looking guy at best) is likely going to end up with a beautiful, sensitive, lovely woman like Mya. Couple that with some of his behaviour & I guess some people really thought she should be aiming a little higher.
I liked Miles a lot in spite of it all – & it’s a tribute to Paul’s enormous talents as an actor that I was able to sympathize with him & hope that he did find something worthwhile in the end.
I don’t mind MDB. There are ten thousand other films that I wish had won BP in 2004. But there have been egregiously bad winners some years. MDB is not of those. it does have a certain melancholy beauty to it.
Swank was fine. She has some talent. But she’s like Blanchett to me. She is not attractive at all IMO. I would prefer that she had no Oscars. Period. But she actually has two…& so many other HIGHLY DESERVING people have none. I am completely cognizant of the fact that it’s not Swank’s fault. But you should really be a LEGEND (or well on your way to that status) if you have two – & she ain’t no legend. Christ, even Meryl doesn’t have two LEAD Oscars. It’s so blatantly ridiculous I could vomit. For a couple of hours at least.
I’m dug in on The Dogville train. There ain’t no stopping me. EVER. I guess I’d better not spoil it for anyone who hasn’t seen it. But the last few scenes (when Nicole finally cracks) just blew me away. In a career of astounding performances, she just FLOORED me. It’s a real achievement. It’s so bloody cool – the way she got into the car with the gun, glanced at James Caan & said, ” If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.” LMFAO
And I loved that she spared the dog. Moses was an innocent bystander. As animals always are. He wasn’t like the people in the village. He never hurt her so she made sure to let him go. As a feminist I find it a deeply moving allegory that has so many incredible levels to it…& it never falls flat. Nicole just keeps those plates spinning. She’s a goddess.
I never get tired of Closer. There are a million reasons why. I saw it the December weekend it opened. Saw it with my current boy weeks later on my birthday. Then another four times. Until I had the DVD in my hot little hands.
I’ve been in love with Jude Law forever. He was excellent. I adore Julia. This is the best work she’s ever done IMO. But Clive Owen is a revelation. He’s so god damn brilliant in that movie. Just completely unforgettable. It’s a performance for the ages. Portman’s in WAY OVER HER HEAD with those three (Oscar nom or not) but she’s not why I will adore this film till my dying breath.
There are some reasons that are so deeply personal that I’d prefer not to go into them in public. But basically Closer is my romantic life since I was 16. Not quite that bleak. No infidelity on either side. (Hah. Like anyone in their right mind would even think about cheating on me. Guys know what side their bread is buttered on. LOL)
But the tone is something I can relate to. The passionate arguments where nothing is left unsaid, the anger that makes you wound whether you want to or not, the difficulties in choosing a partner that’s worthy, making it work, staying, leaving, coming back, leaving for good…The way you always think you know how it will all turn out & as soon as you get involved it inevitably becomes something else. Distrust. The grass is always greener syndrome. Sex as a weapon.
I’ve seen it all. Done it all…
It’s funny how much it hits home (& it really, genuinely does for me) cuz despite the brilliant acting the characters are all pretty despicable. Especially to each other. Alice loves Dan. But she lies to him to protect herself. Dan lies to Alice so he can be with Anna. Anna lies to Larry so she can be with Dan. Larry lies to Dan to get back at him. And I always love the look on Jude’s face at the end when he stares at that wall & suddenly discovers who Alice REALLY is.
Plus The Blower’s Daughter (which begins & ends the picture) is such a classic, heartgbreaking piece of music. “I can’t take my eyes off of you…”
I can’t get enough of this movie. If I start to watch it I’ll end up watching it every weekend for weeks on end. Mike Nichols (one of my favourites) always excelled at cerebral films about romance & sexual politics. It’s a great companion piece to Carnal Knowledge. Also Who’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf. Both of which I own.
I can’t help it. It speaks to me & my sensibilities.
It’s the deepest. darkest valentine imaginable.
This is my experience, Chuck. Can’t help it. I just have to be true to who I am….
Serena I find your disagreements more enjoyable than most’s agreements, and I mean that very much as a compliment. I won’t argue you with you on Closer and Dogville, as they obviously moved you in a very personal way, and that’s what movies are for, and it would be ridiculous for one to try and walk on that (not that I could anyway.)
I have to say that I don’t care for Carnal Knowledge either, didn’t buy one minute of it. Truthfully, I’m not quite sure I understand the appeal of Mike Nichols. I didn’t like Angels in America. Like but have issues with The Graduate, kinda like but have issues with Charlie Wilson’s War. Like more than I should Primary Colors (if only for Kathy Bates’ absolutely wonderful work.)
Angels, Carnal and Closer play like college thesis movies to me, and damn if we’re going to let the natural flow of characters or real life interfer with our Big Important Thesis that will alter the lives of all that watch. Closer and Carnal strive too hard for “dark” and “uncompromising” for me. And Nicholson’s ultimate fate in Carnal, while it sounds interesting and sad on paper, didn’t ring. I see why these various films can (and do) strike people differently, but I don’t get it, might be the stubborn contrarian in me, which, I think, may motivate your Cate problem just a teensy bit.
And I can understand that even, Cate’s been everywhere, and her oscar for Aviator is ridiculous. But she’ll try anything and she normally succeeds. Love her work in Coffee and Cigarettes. Her frazzeled boy’s wet dream in Notes of a Scandal perfectly complimented Dench’s crusty jarringly human inhumanity. She sparrs with Murray beautifully in The Life Aquatic. And her Dylan, while a bit taken overboard by the critics (all the Dylans should have been praised equally) is bruised, monstrous, and the embodiment of the intangible vulnerability of that great film.
I’ve left out several others.
We’re simpatico on Sideways and Alexander Payne. He’s exactly what comedy needs, and wait for every film.
I better be notified when your blog opens Serena.
“I find your disagreements more enjoyable than most’s agreements…”
I DO take that as a compliment, honey bear. It’s actually one of the most unique & interesting ones I’ve ever been given.
So thank you ever so, kind sir. Just what I need on a Friday morn.
It’s freezing up here….LOL
I haven’t really slept yet. It’s a very long story (LOL) but I just noticed this.
“I better be notified when your blog opens Serena.”
Do you know something I don’t know, Chuck? LMAO
It’s really not something that I would ever do. It’s fine to comment casually here & there on peoples’ sites etc. but there are a million things I have to do within the next two years or so. Mostly career related. Having your own vanity project is just too time consuming.
Have to make some real money. Don’t have time to monkey f around.
Unfortunately…
The key is to write your blog while you’re slaving away at another boring, thankless job. That way, you’re not wasting your time, your wasting the Man’s time.
My apologies for not reading the entire thread of comments here, I just had to comment back to Serena: I agree with you that Blanchett is no Meryl Streep. That’s like comparing Pacino and DeNiro…different actors, different personalities, completely different styles.
I can’t agree with you on Blanchett, but your comparison to Paltrow is interesting since I had nothing but contempt for Paltrow for quite some time and in the last few years, I’ve begun to soften on it. No one I knew could grasp my dislike of Paltrow and so now I can put your Blanchett feelings into some perspective. Makes some sense to me what you’re feeling about her. More visceral than intellectual if it’s anything like my dislike for Paltrow (even after softening some).
I agree with Chuck though: “I find your disagreements more enjoyable than most’s agreements…”
Couldn’t have said it better myself and I hadn’t put my finger on it either. He’s right…your passion is wonderful even when I don’t agree with your argument.
Oh, so now we’re going to take the piss out of Gwinny, too? Is there no safe harbor for beautiful, talented women anymore?
(heh heh…I’m just stirring the shit here. Joel knows I’m a proud Paltrow lover and we’re at peace with our disagreement)
Also…I raise a glass to The Man for letting me waste copious amounts of his time…like right now.
Methinks Serena is one of those free-spirits who wouldn’t want to be chained to a blog. She gets her audience on the fly. A blog nomad if you will.
Well, joel, that actually makes me feel a bit better. When you asked me the other day if I hadn’t mistaken Blanchett for Bosworth & then said “cause I don’t know what you’re talking about”, I genuinely thought you were pissed. LOL
The net is tough. Cuz if you’ve met people (even once) then you generally have some idea of their humour or their particular perspective on things. A person can toss off any remark they want & you’re left trying to figure out if they really did mean it the way YOU thought etc. I mean, smilies & other things (like LMAO & ROTFL) are indicative to some degree. But sometimes it’s difficult to assess.
I thought you might be mad. But I thought , how upset could you realistically be that I don’t care for Blanchett? If you were her brother or something, then I could see it. But you haven’t met her as far as I know.
I’ll be as honest as I can be. I love women that are either acting dynamos, very glamourous in some way or both.
I have NEVER said that Blanchett had no talent. She does. That’s practically indisputable. But the way SOME people (NOT you, joel LOL) go on & on & ON about her kinda sets my teeth on edge.
I’m a big Meryl fan. She’s sufficiently glamourous but she doesn’t really care about the way she looks. But, in terms of talent, there’s her…& then there’s everybody else. In terms of her artistic abilities, she can’t be beat.
These are the women that I bow down to: Vivien Leigh, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, Marilyn Monroe, Lauren Bacall, Elizabeth Taylor, Sophia Loren, Ann Margret, CZJ, Barbara Hershey, Isabelle Adjani, Barbra Streisand, Brigitte Bardot, Kim Basinger, Judi Dench, Susan Sarandon, Michelle Pfeiffer, Helen Mirren, Julie Christie, Faye Dunaway, Diane Keaton & Lena Olin.
A pretty good cross section of them, anyway. Lots of sexpots. Most them proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were much more than pretty faces. But they’re mostly iconic…& for a reason. Of course Barbra is a force of nature – & a law unto herself. There has never been anyone like her…& there never will be again. But she took that unconventionality & made it work for her.
So…unless someone is besotted with Blanchett, they would have to concede that all of these women (except for the possibility of Streisand) are much better looking than she’ll ever be. But, even though I don’t like Blanchett I’m willing to concede that she has more natural talent than some of the women on my list. A lot of them were instinctive & raw rather than highly trained. Very different than Blanchett.
I mean, I don’t intend to be THAT critical. There are very few people that are horrifically homely. Most people have at least a few good features or things that are nice . Everyone can LOOK beautiful. It’s just that not everyone can BE beautiful. As unattractive as I perceive her to be, I have seen Blanchett look good. But that’s not saying much.
In interviews she always comes off as smug, glib or sarcastic. Maybe I just don’t get her humour. But I’m sure it’s more complicated than that.
For me – with my female idols – the common denominator is that I’d want to BE them. I would never want to be Blanchett.
Everyone has a particular affinity for some things & certain people. Blanchett just doesn’t do it for me.
But I am surprised to see guys come to her defence so strenuously. Kind of interesting.
But no big deal, joel. If you & Chuck are Blanchett fans, you guys can love her as much as you like.
I won’t protest….
Plus it is wonderful to be appreciated for your passion by men. But you two are the very first guys to have said something like that without ever meeting me. LOL
But thank you. You two are swell in my books as well.
I’m glad you’re not mad at me, joel…
You are correct about the blog thing, Craig sir. I could never be chained to anything or anyone.
I must be free & roam the world in a solitary fashion. Finding new frontiers & blah blah blah. LOL
Craig, are you really a Paltrow fan? Ewwwwww….
Maybe now I’ll have to rethink our friendship. LMAO
I must be free to roam and to love Margo Tenenbaum. I know, I’m in a huge minority among my friends. c’est la vie.
Yeah, Margo is almost the beginning and ending of my Gwyneth appreciation. She’s gets a pass for me with Margo.
Yes, and it’s widly known that I have a sickness.
No accounting for taste, right?
For a good while I considered Blanchett the new Susan Sarandon, mainly because I figured that she was taking at least a considerable number of roles that, had they been offered to anyone, say, a decade earlier or more, would have landed on Sarandon’s desk. I think an analogy like that is far more apt than to suggest she’s already Meryl Streep II because she just isn’t. For the record, when did Meryl Streep become MERYL STREEP? Sophie’s Choice? Out of Africa? I believe it was somewhere in there, or perhaps even later.
I’m fairly convinced that Blanchett could, if you paid her, mimic a broom resting against a door for two hours, though I still don’t think she’s managed to “break through” beyond being one of the top leading ladies/supporting actresses of today, which she certainly is. It’s as though when she played Katharine Hepburn, in the Academy’s mind, she became a close enough approximation of “the new Kate Hepburn.” Which is kind of silly. For the record, I can’t stand her performance in that film. I just can’t. I’d take anything she’s done in anything else over that in a heartbeat. It was a bad imitation of Hepburn, hardly Oscar-worthy stuff. Why oh why do so many very talented people win Oscars for their lesser work?
I like Paltrow in certain things. She’s good in Seven. Nothing all that special in Shakespeare in Love.
Serena, I too have yet sleep since the evening before last. I’m running on fumes and I have to attend my precious Noir City Festival at the Castro tonight, meaning I’ll be up ’till one in the morning. I might be so tired I’ll drive right off the Golden Gate Bridge on my way home. The weather here is awful. I feel like I’m living in Seattle with this nonstop rain! (Yes, please, somebody, anybody feel pity for me.)
I want to disagree with Serena over something, too! :-)
We’re getting rain in LA to Alexander…I was beginning to wonder if it was the end of the world.
Cate’s performance as Kate to me was a caricature, but one I enjoyed. I wonder if it was her choice or if Scorsese wanted it that way.
I am inclined to think Scorsese has become more and more “open-minded” with his actors considering what many considered sort of over-the-top performances by Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York, Blanchett in The Aviator and Nicholson in The Departed. I can still basically defend the Day-Lewis turn (despite it being in the master’s worst film of this decade) as being showy because Bill has to be showy for his comrades but Nicholson and especially Blanchett are kind of tough nuts for me to crack. (I seem to go back and forth on Nicholson. Overall, I think the reason you get Jack is to play Jack unless he’s doing About Schmidt and he played Jack very well in The Departed. It’s my favorite “Jack as Jack” performance of his.) One thing about Shutter Island that makes me hopeful, despite my deep and fierce loathing of the ending, is the casting of such subtle guys as Kingsley and Ruffalo. They don’t mug or chew scenery much if ever.
I saw those news reports about those downpours in LA, Craig. They said that you folks have received as much rain already as you did already for all of last winter? Incredible if true. It’s certainly the end of the world.
Rain. We needed it. I’m not complaining. Being a transplanted Seattlite, I’m like a duck in a pond.
As much as I loved The Departed and as much as I enjoy Jack’s persona…I was a little disappointed that’s mostly what we got from him. I miss 5 Easy Pieces Jack.
I’m still not sure exactly what Scorsese was going for with Gangs of New York, but Aviator is clearly a throwback to various eras of film making re-envisioned through the techniques of modern film making. I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain the bizarre color palette Scorsese shifts into during the golf scene, but he’s trying to evoke a feeling of that time period so the exaggerated performances make some sense, although really Blanchett was the only one who stood out as exaggerated to me.
As for Nicholson in the Departed, that movie has a lot of references to Scarface (the original) and Public Enemy. I think Nicholson may just be doing his own persona on-screen, but I imagine Scorsese was pushing him to evoke Cagney and Muni. At least, I hope he was. I know many people were turned off by the stylistized technical song-and-dance of Departed and the over-the-top storytelling, but I loved it. As a fan of Scorsese, it was a lot of fun to watch him have his way with the cast, the story, and the audience.
I can appreciate those that were less enthusiastic about it though.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved the hell out of Jack (“Enjoy your clams, cocksuckers.”), but I felt a little cheated in that it was overly familiar. He proved with Schmidt that he can stretch and I want more of that.
I’m an apologist for both Gangs and Aviator, but haven’t seen either one enough to justify my opinion so I’ll keep quiet on them.
“Enjoy your clams, cocksuckers.” SUCH A GREAT LINE. LOL
I also got a subversive little thrill when ol Jackie boy said that to the priests. I’m a fallen Catholic but still very spiritual. Even though I’ve left the Catholic church I would never even think to speak to a member of the clergy that way. That’s precisely why it’s so funny.
I adored The Departed BTW. Saw it seven times before I bought it. It’s classic, vintage Scorsese with a Shakespearean chaser.
I’ll tackle you boys one at a time. So to speak….LMAO
Craig darling, it does appear that you were joking when you called Gwynnie “beautiful & talented”. Oh, Craig, Craig, CRAIG….Let’s hope so. How can you stoop so low?
I won’t be darkly malevolent here. I have seen some people make this remark – & I won’t cuz I think it’s going a little too far. You know, people that say they liked Seven or enjoyed it cuz of Paltrow’s character’s eventual fate? That would be pretty damn nasty.
I’ll give Margot to you guys. She was good in that. But, seriously, it’s a very well written part in a film that’s kind of whimsically lovely & epically tragic by turns. Gwynnie would have to be either terrible or on drugs to screw that up. So I really think that the fact that she’s good in in TRT has very little to do with her abilities as an actor.
But speaking of that film….
One other thing that I find greatly amusing (that has really nothing to do with Gwynnie per se) is the way that they set that scene up where you go through the whole parade of her lovers (women & men) while that cool music (was it The Velvet Underground?) takes flight in the background. That sequence is pretty inspired & always makes me laugh when I see it on TV. It’s a really fab way of establishing that Margot has been chronically unfaithful to Bill Murray (at the very least) without using any dialogue.
But I guess that explains the SIL fetish, sweetie. I bloody loathe SIL with the passion of a thousand white hot suns. Gwynnie is only part of that hatred. It’s absolutely awful in my view. (Except for Judi, of course). I think SPR is a tad superior but not by much. I wanted The Thin Red Line to win SO BADLY. 98 was not a bad year for cinema at all. But you would think so going by the films that they nodded.
(But Sasha loves SIL & I adore Sasha. So rather than making her upset on her blog I’m giving you the goods here & now, Craig.)
Also, dearest one, what about the 5 Easy Pieces thing? I saw that years ago on the tube when I was a teenager. I have yet to revisit it. I thought it was the most horrid offensive sexist claptrap I’d seen in many a moon. You’re not a chauvinist at all, Craig. So you clearly have a different view. Maybe you could explain to the class….?
joel, my favourite thing about GONY (BY A LONG SHOT) was DDL. If he hadn’t won all ready (or Adrien HAD previously) I would definitely have backed him in 2002. (As it was, for me it was pretty much a coin toss.) I thought he was AMAZING. I only saw it once (& never again). But there are moments where I literally held my breath. He’s such a glorified alpha male in that. So brutal. So strong. Completely immovable. Like an iron bar.
Apparently he lifted weights & listened to Eminem continuously to get into character at the beginning. Bill The Butcher is a fantastic character & DDL just sweeps the floor with anyone else that comes in contact with him onscreen.
Alexander, as I type this it’s approximately 10 AM Pacific on Saturday. I sincerely hope that you didn’t drive your car off the Golden Gate bridge. I want you posting here (& at AD) for a long, long time. Silly boy. Don’t drive when you’re tired. That’s how accidents happen – & for once I’m totally serious. I wouldn’t want something to happen to you.
How was your Noir City Festival? I do hope you enjoyed it & that you’re walking around unhurt. Is that the festival where you & sartre were supposed to hook up? If that’s the case I want details. But I’m not gonna feel pity for you. LOL From what I understand you have a lovely girl that’s looking after you. So I’m positive that she made sure that your car stayed on dry land.
Getting back to TP for a moment. Jack can be brilliant, bold or just a little bit too “Jack”. I loved him in that film. I think Frank Costello had many facets to him that translated as larger than life. If he had been an actual person instead of a film character that would have been true in any case. So for Jack to play him in such a rousing, over the top manner just fits IMO. I still think Jack deserved a nod. I think it’s some of the best work he’s ever done.
Blanchett (in The Aviator) was just a waste as far as I’m concerned. The accent, the physicality…everything was wrong. Then she accepts her Oscar wearing a piss yellow dress (WHEN SHE’S BLONDE???? – Christ…) & says that she felt so flattered to get that award cuz many of the members actually knew Kate. So she must’ve gotten it right. OH JESUS…
But the thing about acting is: unless you’re being directed by one of these unstable control freaks (a dickhead like Rob Reiner that gives you LINE READINGS for example) you are ALWAYS completely responsible for your own performance. If someone gives you leeway to find your character & pursue every avenue until you’ve accomplished what you want YOU TAKE IT. EAGERLY. They’ll do what they want with it in the editing room & it’s out of your control once it reaches that point.
So maybe Marty is giving his actors more leeway as of late & allowing them to come up with a lot of different things instinctually. If a director is worth his/her salt he/she will be more of a collaborator anyway, He/she won’t be threatened by your suggestions. But I don’t think that happens in film very often. Directors have big egos. That’s why they’re directors. LOL I imagine a lot of them think that, aside from fulfilling their visions, that actors are pretty much dispensable.
I’m a little hazy about the Blanchett/Susan Sarandon comparison, Alexander. Are you speaking in terms of versatility? Cuz Susan is extremely sexy in a classic old school Sophia Loren way…& Blanchett seems like a very cold fish to me.
It’s only my opinion, but I think Meryl likely became MERYL STREEP (fabulous accomplished actor/film icon) the minute she won for Sophie’s Choice. That was the beginning of that legend. In 85, when she was nodded for OOA – & she had the phenomenal one two punch of Plenty that same year – I think the rep solidified for good. But that’s just my two cents…
Alexander, I do think the world of you. I’m completely sincere.
You can disagree with me (PASSIONATELY) any time you want, little baby….
Don’t get me started on the travesty that is the public’s general ignorance of The Thin Red Line. It didn’t help that it had to compete with Saving Private Ryan, an over-rated Speilberg film (in my opinion) but it also didn’t help that the studio was so gun-shy about giving it a proper release. I’m still waiting for Mallick to go back to the original footage and do his own cut, or for him to restore Adrian Brody’s original performance in some kind of extended deleted scene or something. There’s a movie that deserves a massive Special Edition from Criterion with a commentary track explaining just how that production went. It would be fascinating to hear the real story.
Great movie. Deserved much more than it got.
I haven’t seen SIL in a million years but I stand by my enjoyment of it. I was also rooting for Thin Red Line, for the record. I i didn’t consider SIL to be the best movie, but then the Oscar winner so very rarely is.
As for 5 Easy Pieces…all I can say is that it’s Jack’s best performance ever and the fact that he plays a prick and a first class chauvinist bastard, that doesn’t mean the movie itself is chauvinist.
Point taken, Craigster. *grins*
joel, I’m glad someone else loves TTRL & felt that it deserved BP. I know some people who hate it. And of the people that I’m close to that loathe it is a gentleman who told me that SIL is his favourite BP win. He is extraordinarily intelligent, too.
*scratches head*
Frankly, I don’t get it…
The main problem I think with The Thin Red Line is that people thought they were getting a war movie and they got poetry.
Too bad they were too stupid to know how lucky they were.
“…people thought they were getting a war movie & they got poetry.”
That’s beautiful, honey. Truly – & that’s exactly how I feel about that too. The cinematography is so gorgeous it’s just unbelievable. I’ve never seen grass & the jungle look so deep & green. Water so vibrantly turquoise it resembled Arizona jewelry. It had such an extreme sensual lushness to it.
(And a huge LOL to the second line of your post. Let’s just say you hit the nail on the head, babe.)
That’s what stays with me concerning TTRL. It’s the images. I can barely remember the dialogue. But it’s been 10 years since I’ve seen it & those scenes still burn brightly & resonate in my mind.
Mmmmm….
The power of the movies….
Some of the voice over sticks with me…but nothing specific. Mostly it’s the images and the feelings.
Truly visual filmmaking.
This will not be popular, but I like The New World even better. It’s a cliche to call watching a movie a transporting experience, but that one really was for me in a deeply personal way that is hard to articulate. I was highly emotional at the end and not because of how the story played out exactly, it was what it represented to me which was a regret over a loss of purity and innocence in the world.
I know people that LOVE TNW. I adore Malick (Badlands & ESPECIALLY Days Of Heaven) but I’ve never seen TNW.
So I can’t comment…
But methinks you’re a highly emotional sort anyway…
And I mean that in the most positive sense obviously. LOL
Usually, with movies I’m not. I tend to intellectualize more than emotionalize (word?) but TNW broke down my defenses. Since it happens rarely, when it does it leaves a mark.
Didn’t care much at all for CLOVERFIELD–too much BLAIR WITCH all over again, and overly bombastic, but what a fabulous review you wrote here.
Thanks Sam. For better or for worse, I think a couple of things set Blair Witch apart from Cloverfield: 1) At the time, Blair was an original approach 2) it was done in a way that you could actually believe it was real. Cloverfield, despite their best efforts felt staged.