May was a pretty slow month and I never got out to the movies, though I probably would have if Far From the Madding Crowd had been playing in my theater. June has a couple more that I'll probably be watching once they release on DVD, and also one very super-awesome-sauce must-see!
What June releases have your attention right now?
Testament of Youth
Jun 5th(limited); PG-13
Another period drama for this summer! This one is set in WWI and seems almost unbearably full of drama. But it's getting good reviews already and has an enticing cast. The leading lady, Alicia Vikander I have never seen before, but the rest of the cast is almost nothing but familiar names, such as Kit Harington, Emily Watson, Hayley Atwell, Dominic West, Anna Chancellor, Colin Morgan, Taron Egerton, and Jonathan Bailey. Those names alone are enough for me to want to watch it, whether it turns out to be melodramatic and depressing or not.
Love & Mercy
Jun 5th(limited); PG-13
The fact that this one centers around the life of Beach Boy Brian Wilson weighs almost nothing with me. It's the cast of John Cusack and Paul Dano -- playing the older and younger version of him respectively that has all my attention. Elizabeth Banks and Paul Giamatti don't hurt things either.
Me and Earl and the Dying Girl
Jun 12th; PG-13
I figured that after The Fault in Our Stars I would be done with movies about cancer, but if it's a good movie, I can't help but be interested, even if one of the characters is practically guaranteed to die. This one has no one I recognize in it besides Nick Offerman in a supporting part, but the trailer is great, and the movie is getting some head-turning reviews.
Jurassic World
Jun 12th; PG-13
This is my June must-see. And... well, there's not too much else to say. Chris Pratt and dinosaurs -- how can that possibly go wrong? It seriously cannot. It may not be a GREAT movie, but it will undoubtedly be an AWESOME movie. And that's all I need. Can't wait!
Inside Out
Jun 19th; PG
It's the new Disney Pixar movie, so the chances of it being less than great are at like, 0.00001%. It's cast with plenty of familiar names, but none that are particularly exciting to me. Amy Poehler leading promises lots and lots of excited funniness, and the premise is super creative. I haven't got hit with excitement for this one yet, but I'd be surprised if it doesn't happen eventually. As I said, it's the newest Pixar movie!
Showing posts with label Paul Giamatti. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Giamatti. Show all posts
Monday, June 1, 2015
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The Nanny Diaries
Annie, a fresh college graduate from New Jersey is feeling a lot of pressure from her mother to start her gray, cardboard cutout climb up the ladder in the business world of NYC, but she's not sure if that where she wants to be. Her major was business, sure, but her minor was in cultural anthropology -- the study of humans and their differing societies. She's not sure about that either.
She not sure about anything -- except that she should save this little boy from being run over by a segway. The boy's mother, a rich mom from the Upper East Side, is very grateful. Annie introduces herself, but the mom mishears her and hears "I'm a nanny" instead of "I'm Annie." And wouldn't you know it? Mrs. X (as Annie calls her to protect her name) needs a nanny. Annie likes kids and needs some time to regroup and figure out her life, and decides this would be a good place for her to do that, but she signed up for way more than she thought.
This movie is quite a mishmash of genres, mainly a rom-com with a very large side of drama, or, maybe a drama with a medium side of comedy and a good taste of romance. It's narrated by, and from the perspective of Scarlett Johansson as Annie. Before watching this movie I heard an opinion that she was miscast to be the lead of this movie, and maybe that's so -- it was based on a book that may have a very different kind of lead -- and she certainly is an unconventional choice to play a mild mannered casual everyday kind of girl, but it's exactly that that makes her and the film she leads stand out from other drama heavy rom-coms. She was charming and complimented the script and film style well I thought.
On the other side of the romance is another familiar Avenger: Chris Evans. He is the "Harvard Hottie" from upstairs and don't worry, his lack of a name doesn't mean a bit-part role. Of course since there's more nanny drama than romance here their relationship gets the shorter end of the stick, but they're still plenty fun. They have really great chemistry together, as you know if you've seen The Winter Soldier, and this just has a little bit more romance for them to deal with.
Things start getting serious though, when dealing with the X's. Annie uses her time working for Mrs. X as an opportunity to do a kind of anthropogenic study on high class New York families. I don't know at all from experience, but I imagine that some things she observes and the film shows us are stereotypes and/or exaggerations, but some probably hits home too. And for more than just those lucky enough to call the upper east side their home.
Mrs. X is Laura Linney. I adore Laura Linney, though I've only seen her in a few things, and I must say she really impressed me in this role. Her character was tragic and complex and full of hard layers and the way she played it was well-near mesmerizing. She controlled the screen while it showed her. As far as I can tell, the character was her type -- the lady who is bright and cheerful on the outside but hiding lots of darker things underneath -- but it didn't feel like just another typical role, it felt like a very thoughtful performance, even if the character was just a generalization of that kind of woman. Her son Grayer is played by Nicholas Art and is only occasionally annoying, when he's supposed to be, and is otherwise quite a charmer and quite an actor.
Another generalized character is Mrs. X's distant, cold, super rich husband. He is played by Paul Giamatti, and not at all his type. It was rather scary actually; when the character is first introduced they hide is face for a time, and when it's finally revealed it's made up to be unsettling -- light reddish hair, and contacts to make his eyes a lighter blue. He looks as if he has no soul. And of course Giamatti's performance uses and grows on that impression. He is quite the pro, and produces a character that is arguably stereotyped and just as arguably accurate.
The comedy is hit and miss -- some silly, slapstick type things and some things that warranted a chuckle, but nothing particularly flat or particularly memorable. As a rom-com -- however partially -- this movie is not missing any Oscars it's worthy of by being overlooked and disregarded. But, as a rom-com, it actually impresses by being a satisfying lighthearted romance and adding some pretty deep and heartfelt themes and lessons to the mix as well. It's an involving, sweet story that gets its truths right, and is full of talent, making a quite enjoyable glance into a fictional exhibit featuring the strange culture of plastic families and their overwhelmed and observant nannies.
 |
| Annie comes in contact with a member of a strange and exotic society known as "rich housewife." |
She not sure about anything -- except that she should save this little boy from being run over by a segway. The boy's mother, a rich mom from the Upper East Side, is very grateful. Annie introduces herself, but the mom mishears her and hears "I'm a nanny" instead of "I'm Annie." And wouldn't you know it? Mrs. X (as Annie calls her to protect her name) needs a nanny. Annie likes kids and needs some time to regroup and figure out her life, and decides this would be a good place for her to do that, but she signed up for way more than she thought.
This movie is quite a mishmash of genres, mainly a rom-com with a very large side of drama, or, maybe a drama with a medium side of comedy and a good taste of romance. It's narrated by, and from the perspective of Scarlett Johansson as Annie. Before watching this movie I heard an opinion that she was miscast to be the lead of this movie, and maybe that's so -- it was based on a book that may have a very different kind of lead -- and she certainly is an unconventional choice to play a mild mannered casual everyday kind of girl, but it's exactly that that makes her and the film she leads stand out from other drama heavy rom-coms. She was charming and complimented the script and film style well I thought.
 |
| These two go way back, don't they? |
On the other side of the romance is another familiar Avenger: Chris Evans. He is the "Harvard Hottie" from upstairs and don't worry, his lack of a name doesn't mean a bit-part role. Of course since there's more nanny drama than romance here their relationship gets the shorter end of the stick, but they're still plenty fun. They have really great chemistry together, as you know if you've seen The Winter Soldier, and this just has a little bit more romance for them to deal with.
Things start getting serious though, when dealing with the X's. Annie uses her time working for Mrs. X as an opportunity to do a kind of anthropogenic study on high class New York families. I don't know at all from experience, but I imagine that some things she observes and the film shows us are stereotypes and/or exaggerations, but some probably hits home too. And for more than just those lucky enough to call the upper east side their home.
 |
| Not amused. Not at all amused. |
Mrs. X is Laura Linney. I adore Laura Linney, though I've only seen her in a few things, and I must say she really impressed me in this role. Her character was tragic and complex and full of hard layers and the way she played it was well-near mesmerizing. She controlled the screen while it showed her. As far as I can tell, the character was her type -- the lady who is bright and cheerful on the outside but hiding lots of darker things underneath -- but it didn't feel like just another typical role, it felt like a very thoughtful performance, even if the character was just a generalization of that kind of woman. Her son Grayer is played by Nicholas Art and is only occasionally annoying, when he's supposed to be, and is otherwise quite a charmer and quite an actor.
Another generalized character is Mrs. X's distant, cold, super rich husband. He is played by Paul Giamatti, and not at all his type. It was rather scary actually; when the character is first introduced they hide is face for a time, and when it's finally revealed it's made up to be unsettling -- light reddish hair, and contacts to make his eyes a lighter blue. He looks as if he has no soul. And of course Giamatti's performance uses and grows on that impression. He is quite the pro, and produces a character that is arguably stereotyped and just as arguably accurate.
 |
| We all know those looks. |
The comedy is hit and miss -- some silly, slapstick type things and some things that warranted a chuckle, but nothing particularly flat or particularly memorable. As a rom-com -- however partially -- this movie is not missing any Oscars it's worthy of by being overlooked and disregarded. But, as a rom-com, it actually impresses by being a satisfying lighthearted romance and adding some pretty deep and heartfelt themes and lessons to the mix as well. It's an involving, sweet story that gets its truths right, and is full of talent, making a quite enjoyable glance into a fictional exhibit featuring the strange culture of plastic families and their overwhelmed and observant nannies.
Wednesday, April 29, 2015
New Trailer - The Little Prince
It doesn't even have a release date yet, but it's cast list looks like this:
Rachel McAdams
Jeff Bridges
Marion Cotillard
James Franco
Paul Rudd
Paul Giamatti
Ricky Gervais
Benicio Del Toro
And it's an adaptation of the novel by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -- which I have never read, but if people say it's a masterpiece, I believe them. The trailer certainly does have the feel of something very special. I am also very interested by the mixed animating styles of the typical computer animation and the stop-motion. Both the styles look very beautiful.
I know next to nothing about this, but I want to see it already. Watch the trailer below! What do you think? Have you read the book? Are you interested in this adaptation?
Rachel McAdams
Jeff Bridges
Marion Cotillard
James Franco
Paul Rudd
Paul Giamatti
Ricky Gervais
Benicio Del Toro
And it's an adaptation of the novel by Antoine de Saint-Exupéry -- which I have never read, but if people say it's a masterpiece, I believe them. The trailer certainly does have the feel of something very special. I am also very interested by the mixed animating styles of the typical computer animation and the stop-motion. Both the styles look very beautiful.
I know next to nothing about this, but I want to see it already. Watch the trailer below! What do you think? Have you read the book? Are you interested in this adaptation?
Saturday, May 17, 2014
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Minor spoilers throughout. Major spoilers have a warning.
Here we go again. This sequel to a reboot not unexpectedly feels very familiar; a different version of a story we've seen many times before. Parts from our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man's last movie are even reiterated just in case you're clueless as to the origin story of Spider-Man (as if!) rendering the last movie all but unnecessary. And we are subjected yet again to Spidey's worries that the people of NYC don't appreciate him, that he is constantly putting his girl in danger, and that he won't be able to keep his secret. However, the fact that we've seen it before is the only thing making it slightly tiresome, because it is done with more grace than ever. And there's more here than just reiteration, and a lot of it is unexpected. Unexpected and good.
Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker's energy, charm and likability continue to be unending. He is what makes these movies worthwhile. Snarky and hip, yet understanding, and his heroism is fully fledged. He's just as likely to help a kid being pestered by bullies as he is to do something to garner fame and attention. I realize the kid was little more than a ploy to make us see how sweet Spidey is, but come on; he was adorable, introducing himself like that. He knows he's needed and can no more resist lending a helping-web than he can resist his beautiful, sassy girl, Gwen. He and Emma Stone are so natural together that during some of their scenes of playful, intimate banter, I got a distinct impression of being a third wheel and thought that I should probably leave them alone.
Ever since I saw him in the trailer I knew Dane DeHaan's Harry would be the highlight of this movie, and I was right. DeHaan's fantastic, detailed style of acting is one you'd usually find in indie films, and it sets him apart. His intricate performance was bursting -- begging for more screen-time, and not only made him perfectly believable as the bitter, neglected son of an extremely cold and even more wealthy man, but makes us understand his conflict, and be involved in his development. All without being bashed over the head with the information via the script -- simply paying attention reveals it naturally.
Then he abruptly becomes the Green Goblin, and from there the comic style of the movie worked against him. The villain side would work better as a more subtly and darkly crazy, rather than a cackling villain typical of cheesy superhero flicks and episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Fortunately, his time spent cackling was limited, giving plenty of opportunity for the character to be molded to DeHaan's better abilities for later. (I hope I'm not assuming too much thinking he'll return? Obviously he needs to.)
Then there's the big villain, Electro. Jamie Foxx's performance is of course great, before and after being superpowered. But the after is the real him; the before is just teasing us for the main event, and when it comes, then he is complete. He rocks the villainous monologues, the maniacal cackle -- or crackle in his case -- and the glowing blue skin, and is over-the-top and out-of-this world. But his origin story and motivations are as cliche as cliche gets, and therefore I hardly cared one way or another about him once he made the unbelievable leap from mild mannered and invisible to fantastic, vengeful and electric.
Other fun but less involved additions to the cast include Chris Cooper as Norman Osbourne, Paul Giamatti obviously having fun as a crazy Russian who loves crashing into things, Felicity Jones as a sly young lady named Felicia. And I happily assume the latter will be showing her face again. And apparently B.J. Novak's small part was a comic villain as well. I wonder if number three will be even more baddie-packed than this one. They might just be able to get away with it; they managed the number in this one unexpectedly well.
(Major Spoilers!)
A certain person's dying was sadly not very sad, even though I didn't expect it to really happen. I'm mostly just surprised because of the great chemistry Gwen and Peter had, and I wonder how the void will fill with her gone. (Maybe they'll let Shailene Woodley be Mary Jane after all.) The foreshadowing was so obvious that I figured it was just a big bluff to mess with us, so the whole scene went by before I believed it, and by then it was too late to be moved. So it was my bad, not the film's. A sucker punch would've perhaps been more effective at manipulating emotions, but honestly the better way was the way we witnessed -- contrived, but the considerate, tasteful way.
(End spoilers)
The movie pops and sparkles (sometimes literally when Electro's on screen) with superpowered effects as Spidey swings and fights and saves people at the last second with the flashiest style we've seen yet. If any movies should be in 3D, it's these ones. And the way they show off the Spidey-sense -- with slow-motion, showing us what he sees in a split second, then going back and letting us see how he handles it -- I enjoyed that very much, particularly the first time it happens.
It was pretty jumbled at times, like debris was flying around and falling into random scenes trying to pull it all together, but really it didn't bother me. It was fun that way; it felt upbeat that way; and even though it was too long, it didn't feel too long. And I have to think to remember flaws instead of them sticking out obviously. It stands alone capably, has enough heart for a superhero movie, is full of talented, entertaining performances, and does what it's meant to do. I'm surprised to say this, but it is more its own, and therefore better than the first one. Color me... pleasantly shocked. So, when's the third one coming?
Here we go again. This sequel to a reboot not unexpectedly feels very familiar; a different version of a story we've seen many times before. Parts from our friendly neighborhood Spider-Man's last movie are even reiterated just in case you're clueless as to the origin story of Spider-Man (as if!) rendering the last movie all but unnecessary. And we are subjected yet again to Spidey's worries that the people of NYC don't appreciate him, that he is constantly putting his girl in danger, and that he won't be able to keep his secret. However, the fact that we've seen it before is the only thing making it slightly tiresome, because it is done with more grace than ever. And there's more here than just reiteration, and a lot of it is unexpected. Unexpected and good.
 |
| Nice view. But I'd still be worried about falling without my web-shooters. |
Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker's energy, charm and likability continue to be unending. He is what makes these movies worthwhile. Snarky and hip, yet understanding, and his heroism is fully fledged. He's just as likely to help a kid being pestered by bullies as he is to do something to garner fame and attention. I realize the kid was little more than a ploy to make us see how sweet Spidey is, but come on; he was adorable, introducing himself like that. He knows he's needed and can no more resist lending a helping-web than he can resist his beautiful, sassy girl, Gwen. He and Emma Stone are so natural together that during some of their scenes of playful, intimate banter, I got a distinct impression of being a third wheel and thought that I should probably leave them alone.
 |
| I wonder if they banter like that in real life... |
Ever since I saw him in the trailer I knew Dane DeHaan's Harry would be the highlight of this movie, and I was right. DeHaan's fantastic, detailed style of acting is one you'd usually find in indie films, and it sets him apart. His intricate performance was bursting -- begging for more screen-time, and not only made him perfectly believable as the bitter, neglected son of an extremely cold and even more wealthy man, but makes us understand his conflict, and be involved in his development. All without being bashed over the head with the information via the script -- simply paying attention reveals it naturally.
Then he abruptly becomes the Green Goblin, and from there the comic style of the movie worked against him. The villain side would work better as a more subtly and darkly crazy, rather than a cackling villain typical of cheesy superhero flicks and episodes of Phineas and Ferb. Fortunately, his time spent cackling was limited, giving plenty of opportunity for the character to be molded to DeHaan's better abilities for later. (I hope I'm not assuming too much thinking he'll return? Obviously he needs to.)
 |
| "Isn't that the question of the day." |
Then there's the big villain, Electro. Jamie Foxx's performance is of course great, before and after being superpowered. But the after is the real him; the before is just teasing us for the main event, and when it comes, then he is complete. He rocks the villainous monologues, the maniacal cackle -- or crackle in his case -- and the glowing blue skin, and is over-the-top and out-of-this world. But his origin story and motivations are as cliche as cliche gets, and therefore I hardly cared one way or another about him once he made the unbelievable leap from mild mannered and invisible to fantastic, vengeful and electric.
 |
| Electro and Harry both have what the other lacks. It was all motivation and development for Harry, (up to a point) and it was brilliant, but he wasn't able to cut loose; for Electro, his ability to cut loose and embrace the insanity so confidently was his storyline's saving grace. |
Other fun but less involved additions to the cast include Chris Cooper as Norman Osbourne, Paul Giamatti obviously having fun as a crazy Russian who loves crashing into things, Felicity Jones as a sly young lady named Felicia. And I happily assume the latter will be showing her face again. And apparently B.J. Novak's small part was a comic villain as well. I wonder if number three will be even more baddie-packed than this one. They might just be able to get away with it; they managed the number in this one unexpectedly well.
(Major Spoilers!)
A certain person's dying was sadly not very sad, even though I didn't expect it to really happen. I'm mostly just surprised because of the great chemistry Gwen and Peter had, and I wonder how the void will fill with her gone. (Maybe they'll let Shailene Woodley be Mary Jane after all.) The foreshadowing was so obvious that I figured it was just a big bluff to mess with us, so the whole scene went by before I believed it, and by then it was too late to be moved. So it was my bad, not the film's. A sucker punch would've perhaps been more effective at manipulating emotions, but honestly the better way was the way we witnessed -- contrived, but the considerate, tasteful way.
(End spoilers)
 |
| Wow, I haven't put any pics of the suit yet. So here we go. |
The movie pops and sparkles (sometimes literally when Electro's on screen) with superpowered effects as Spidey swings and fights and saves people at the last second with the flashiest style we've seen yet. If any movies should be in 3D, it's these ones. And the way they show off the Spidey-sense -- with slow-motion, showing us what he sees in a split second, then going back and letting us see how he handles it -- I enjoyed that very much, particularly the first time it happens.
It was pretty jumbled at times, like debris was flying around and falling into random scenes trying to pull it all together, but really it didn't bother me. It was fun that way; it felt upbeat that way; and even though it was too long, it didn't feel too long. And I have to think to remember flaws instead of them sticking out obviously. It stands alone capably, has enough heart for a superhero movie, is full of talented, entertaining performances, and does what it's meant to do. I'm surprised to say this, but it is more its own, and therefore better than the first one. Color me... pleasantly shocked. So, when's the third one coming?
 |
| One more for good measure, and because it's a fun one. |
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Saving Mr. Banks
The author of Mary Poppins, P. L. Travers has quite the experience dealing with Walt Disney and Co. as he courts her for rights to her beloved novel. She entertains them because she needs the money a movie deal will give her, but she really doesn't want to sell, especially if they're going to make as many changes to the story and characters as she's afraid they will. She's very particular that everything stays exactly how she imagined, and we slowly learn why though flashbacks of her childhood in early 1900's Australia, and then watch her protest and drag her heels in 1960's Los Angeles while bubbly assistants, scriptwriters songwriters and Disney himself obtusely parade her "Disneyfied" story in front of her.
So the movie slowly sifts though poor Mrs. Travers' mixed and jumbled emotions as she clings hesitantly to the movie rights while Disney gently tugs on them. And it does it in a more interesting way than I originally thought it would. Half the movie is very much a behind-the-scenes look at the making of Mary Poppins, and being a fan of the movie for as long as I can remember, I found that interesting and fun.
But I also know that a considerable amount of it didn't actually happen. Like in a scene where the writers have had a breakthrough, and present her with something she actually not only approves of, but likes so much that she temporarily comes out of her shell and starts dancing around the room with the screenwriter. It was sweet; it made me smile, but I was simultaneously thinking "no way this actually happened."
Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks' performances were highly praised, so I expected quite a bit out of them, and wasn't disappointed. They both gave quality, detailed and devoted performances. However, as the movie went along, I became more interested in a few supporting characters. Like Paul Giamatti, who obviously was fantastic, (when is he ever not) had a great character to delve into as Mrs. Travers' driver. By the end of the movie he is undoubtedly the most endearing character, and rubbed off on the grumpy Travers a little too.
I also enjoyed B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the brothers Robert and Richard Sherman who wrote the music for the film. Their endeavors to please both Disney and Travers (mostly without even knowing what is was Travers actually wanted) were very amusing. I applaud their efforts, even if in reality they had half as much trouble as the movie depicted, because the results, as we know, are now iconic.
Of course we all know what happens -- we've all seen the result. And very few can deny it's a wonderful result. Mary Poppins is popular today because of Disney and the magic his team worked. We feel for Mrs. Travers argues to keep the film as she wants it, but at the same time we are not nearly as attached to her book as she is; all we want is for her to give in so those poor people can just make that wonderful childhood movie. Methinks the lady doth protest too much -- her desperate arguments and revealing flashbacks are certainly dramatic, but there was too much of it, and I was having so much fun enjoying the lighthearted "behind the scenes" moments that whenever it turned serious, I just wished it would go back to being fun and stay that way.
Saving Mr. Banks has plenty of sweet, sentimental insights into the mind and past of the creator of Mary Poppins -- all sprinkled with a little pixie dust -- but there's just not enough magic here to make anyone reach for this film instead of the one it celebrates. And I suppose that's how it should be.
 |
| "No, no, no!" is her favorite expression. |
But I also know that a considerable amount of it didn't actually happen. Like in a scene where the writers have had a breakthrough, and present her with something she actually not only approves of, but likes so much that she temporarily comes out of her shell and starts dancing around the room with the screenwriter. It was sweet; it made me smile, but I was simultaneously thinking "no way this actually happened."
 |
| I certainly hope that some of the amusing parts weren't made up though! |
Emma Thompson and Tom Hanks' performances were highly praised, so I expected quite a bit out of them, and wasn't disappointed. They both gave quality, detailed and devoted performances. However, as the movie went along, I became more interested in a few supporting characters. Like Paul Giamatti, who obviously was fantastic, (when is he ever not) had a great character to delve into as Mrs. Travers' driver. By the end of the movie he is undoubtedly the most endearing character, and rubbed off on the grumpy Travers a little too.
I also enjoyed B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the brothers Robert and Richard Sherman who wrote the music for the film. Their endeavors to please both Disney and Travers (mostly without even knowing what is was Travers actually wanted) were very amusing. I applaud their efforts, even if in reality they had half as much trouble as the movie depicted, because the results, as we know, are now iconic.
 |
| Behold: the creators of Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious! |
Of course we all know what happens -- we've all seen the result. And very few can deny it's a wonderful result. Mary Poppins is popular today because of Disney and the magic his team worked. We feel for Mrs. Travers argues to keep the film as she wants it, but at the same time we are not nearly as attached to her book as she is; all we want is for her to give in so those poor people can just make that wonderful childhood movie. Methinks the lady doth protest too much -- her desperate arguments and revealing flashbacks are certainly dramatic, but there was too much of it, and I was having so much fun enjoying the lighthearted "behind the scenes" moments that whenever it turned serious, I just wished it would go back to being fun and stay that way.
Saving Mr. Banks has plenty of sweet, sentimental insights into the mind and past of the creator of Mary Poppins -- all sprinkled with a little pixie dust -- but there's just not enough magic here to make anyone reach for this film instead of the one it celebrates. And I suppose that's how it should be.
Friday, April 26, 2013
The Illusionist
It's the classic story. Poor boy meets rich girl. Girl's parents forbid them from seeing each other. Boy promises to run away with girl. Boy leaves alone instead. Fifteen years later, boy returns, a skilled illusionist, and meets girl again, ready to make good on his promise, just as she's about to marry the Crown Prince of Austria.
Alright, so maybe that's not that classic, but every good story needs a good twist, right?
Edward Norton plays Edward, or Eisenheim - what he is known as when he becomes an illusionist. Eisenheim's show becomes very popular when he returns to Vienna. So popular, in fact, that he attracts the attention of the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell). Leopold is one of those not-so-nice princes, for instance, he plans on overthrowing his father, the Emperor, and his plan hinges on his marriage to the Duchess Sophie Von Teschen (Jessica Biel). When Eisenheim discovers his childhood sweetheart's impending marriage, he not so inadvertently humiliates the Crown Prince, prompting him to retaliate. He uses the Chief Inspector Uhl (Paul Giamatti) -- who is more his personal assistant than anything else -- to that purpose. When he is instructed to shut down Eisenheim's show, Uhl is conflicted, as he is fascinated by Eisenheim and his tricks, but loyal to the Prince; suddenly he finds himself caught in the middle of their two-man war.
Eisenheim is certainly meant to be the main character here, but he's a pretty classic magician; mysterious, unreadable. We only get glimpses into his mind as often as other characters do - not often at all. Thank goodness then that Uhl is there to carry the movie. You think the main character is the one who carries the movie? It is an illusion. Paul Giamatti is us; trying to keep up, trying to piece together the mystery - enjoying it immensely. He is our connection to the strange world of The Illusionist. He is also convincingly British.
Not quite so much for fellow Americans Norton and Biel. Thankfully though, they both under-did the accents; much smarter than overdoing it, and it works out fine. Otherwise, they are very fine. I'm not a fan of Jessica Biel, but I don't mind her in this movie at all, and her costumes are so gorgeous. Norton is a great brooding magician. Subtle and... I want to say "deadpan" but that gives a bad impression... is there a way deadpan can be good? At any rate, it gives me the impression that the character is putting on an act, and that's a good thing. Rufus Sewell is definitely a good thing. He always makes a wonderful villain, but here he's especially good. Best of the bunch though, is certainly Giamatti, the only truly involving character, with his perfect subtleties, and the second best eye-roll ever.
Much further than this, I cannot go, for fear of exposing too much of the plot that you should just watch for yourself. This pic is rated PG-13 for some sexuality and violence, and besides one scene which I always easily skip through, it's a pretty clean, if dark and mellow movie. Visually, it's very unique, using sepia tints and vignetting to create a pleasing old-fashioned feel, and early 1900's costumes, buildings, and scenery are all very pretty to look at. And the story... mysterious, magical, and... well...
I will leave off with this: highly recommended.
-- 3.5/5 stars
Alright, so maybe that's not that classic, but every good story needs a good twist, right?
 |
| He remembers her, but does she? |
 |
| The Crown Prince doesn't know what he's getting into. |
Eisenheim is certainly meant to be the main character here, but he's a pretty classic magician; mysterious, unreadable. We only get glimpses into his mind as often as other characters do - not often at all. Thank goodness then that Uhl is there to carry the movie. You think the main character is the one who carries the movie? It is an illusion. Paul Giamatti is us; trying to keep up, trying to piece together the mystery - enjoying it immensely. He is our connection to the strange world of The Illusionist. He is also convincingly British.
 |
| Inspector Uhl brings the story to life. |
 |
| Edward Norton looks the part, and performs some impressive illusions. |
Much further than this, I cannot go, for fear of exposing too much of the plot that you should just watch for yourself. This pic is rated PG-13 for some sexuality and violence, and besides one scene which I always easily skip through, it's a pretty clean, if dark and mellow movie. Visually, it's very unique, using sepia tints and vignetting to create a pleasing old-fashioned feel, and early 1900's costumes, buildings, and scenery are all very pretty to look at. And the story... mysterious, magical, and... well...
I will leave off with this: highly recommended.
-- 3.5/5 stars
 |
| Review number five for this! |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)