about the film: a fictional account based on the true story of how a democratic congressman from texas, charlie wilson, helped the us covert operation against the soviets in afghanistan in the late 1980’s.
what i liked: this film’s primary goal was to reveal information that might not be known to the average viewer about the role the us played in afghanistan in supporting the mujahedeen’s efforts to thwart soviet military control of afghanistan. how this film did it was to implement dry comical wit in almost every scene, making it more of a comedy first and an exposition second. the screenplay by sorkin was great at delivering wit as sorkin has previously shown in is most recent works before charlie wilson’s war, west wing and studio 60. set design and lighting were limited but adequate. cinematography made use of war scene footage which was at best adequate to help reinforce the story but not necessarily needed. hanks and seymour hoffman were outstanding with hoffman gaining an edge for his typical “character” acting performance over hanks’ protagonist role. revolving camera angles and sharp editing helped move the story along at a decent pace. best scene was when hoffman’s character finally met hanks’ character. outstanding movement and dialogue in that scene by those two actors as well as the supporting role (charlie’s office staff).
what i didn’t like: the film’s plot revolved around 2 main characters, hoffman and hanks. but these 2 characters didn’t meet until about half-way through the film. i would have liked to have seen more interaction between hoffman and hanks since they were the primary drivers of this film. roberts had her typical “smile and say a few lines” role where she just sucks the life away from a scene…example is her only direct one on one scene with hoffman where we can see hoffman’s acting outshine roberts on screen right before our very eyes. (as a side note, other than the film erin brockovich, where she actually got to meet and study the lead character herself, and maybe flatliners, roberts’s performances have never impressed me and she is one of my least favorite high paid hollywood actresses who’s made films during my lifetime). the screenplay was too dialogue heavy and although i enjoyed the wit, there wasn’t much time for the characters to exhale (other than hoffman, which was one of the motives of his character: to give the screenplay a pause for some witty air). very little in the way of a soundtrack. some type of music (even if it was some background) would have opened up the film a little bit because without it, it seemed very claustrophobic…which leads me to saying that i noticed very little exterior shots (war footage and refugee camp scenes) and mostly interior shots (which are typical for heavy dialogue films) that made you feel like you were stuck in a box while watching it.
my conclusion: strong performance by hoffman (as usual) and a decent performance by hanks along with a witty dialogue accomplished what might have originally been hard to foresee and that is a well made comedy that revolved around a crucial military and political event involving many nations of the world.
for a "professional" written review, go to ebert's review here
for a "professional" voice recorded review, go to npr's review here
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
La Vie en Rose (2007)
about the film: french film about the life story of singer edith piaf
what i liked: set design, costumes and lighting were all great, audio was decent...but what stood out the most was marion cotillard's portrayl of the famous 20th century french singer, edith piaf. she should win every award for actress of the year for her performance. although she didn't actually sing in the film, her performance alone is worth watching...
cate blanchett says of the film, “Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en rose” was absolutely astonishing, and the synthesis of the performance with the whole film is superb. As much as inhabiting Piaf, she was also creating a creature, and I thought that was astonishing and inspiring. One of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen.” when cate blanchett says that of another actress, you better listen to cate and go watch cotillard's performance.
what i didn't like: editing!!! this was a 2:20 movie that was told not in chronological order...it was spit out all over the place and lasted way too long.
for a "professional" written review, go to ebert's review here
for a "professional" voice recorded review, go to npr's review here
UPDATE 2/24/08: Marion Cotillard wins the 2008 Oscar for Best Lead Actress over Cate Blanchett among others as I predicted.
what i liked: set design, costumes and lighting were all great, audio was decent...but what stood out the most was marion cotillard's portrayl of the famous 20th century french singer, edith piaf. she should win every award for actress of the year for her performance. although she didn't actually sing in the film, her performance alone is worth watching...
cate blanchett says of the film, “Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en rose” was absolutely astonishing, and the synthesis of the performance with the whole film is superb. As much as inhabiting Piaf, she was also creating a creature, and I thought that was astonishing and inspiring. One of the most remarkable things I’ve ever seen.” when cate blanchett says that of another actress, you better listen to cate and go watch cotillard's performance.
what i didn't like: editing!!! this was a 2:20 movie that was told not in chronological order...it was spit out all over the place and lasted way too long.
for a "professional" written review, go to ebert's review here
for a "professional" voice recorded review, go to npr's review here
UPDATE 2/24/08: Marion Cotillard wins the 2008 Oscar for Best Lead Actress over Cate Blanchett among others as I predicted.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Breach (2007)
about the film: on the surface this film would seem to be a fictional account based on the true story of the fbi’s case against robert hanssen, the former fbi agent who engaged in spying for the soviet union and russia against the u.s. for a period of at least 15 years. however, upon further notice, this film is really about the events prior to the arrest of hanssen as seen through the life of american fbi operative, eric o’neil (although not told in strictly first person) who worked as an investigative specialist of the special surveillance group (ssg), and played a role in the arrest and life imprisonment conviction of hanssen.
what i liked: this film’s primary goal was to reveal information that might not be known to the average viewer about the case against and subsequent arrest of hanssen. it delivers in a straight forward manner (typical first, second and third act with a beat in the middle where o’neil learns of why he’s been chosen for his specific task) a fictional interpretation of what it might really be like to be part of a sting operation. i liked the screenplay (except see under what I didn’t like). since it was based on a true story, the writer(s) did a great job of minimizing the embellishment of certain events that could of happened so as to dialogue (via omnipresent third person), in a somewhat of an entertaining way, the feeling of what it’s like being on the good and bad side of making a case against a known spy. the story was not compromised by the director’s mode of shot, the acting was firmly controlled by chris cooper (hanssen) and by laura linney (agent burroughs). on a neutral note, ryan phillippe didn’t hurt (except one scene) or help in his role in portraying o’neil. the music, mostly of piano and violins, seemed to enhance the action on screen at every pivotal moment in the film. other than a few gun shots and yelling, there was very little “big action,” but where this film succeeded was in the smallest of action; 4 scenes in particular: home computer scene, palm pilot scene, car stuck in traffic scene and videotape scene. these four scenes in particular help justify my argument that the best thing about this film was how easily the fear and anticipation of “being caught” was transposed from film to viewer (think of the vault scene in the first mission impossible with tom cruise). as we see o’neil try to gather incriminating information without getting caught by his boss, hanssen, i think the director/writers wanted us to get into the mindset of what it was like for hanssen to spy for 15 years without “being caught.” this film did a great job of exploiting the art and mastery of the “lie”. agent burroughs’/linney’s statement to o’neil about how all her fbi work since she’s been at the bureau means nothing parallels very effectively in the film hanssen’s realization that his rationale for spying (which is to expose vulnerabilities in the fbi's operations) means nothing. also i liked the delicate neutral handling of catholicism (religion, in general) and east german ethnicity…the film leaves it for the viewer to decide or judge based on the facts that hanssen was a devout catholic (even part of opus dei) and that o’neil’s wife, juliana, was of east german descent. editing overall kept the story going and most (if not all scenes) enhanced a reference or the meaning in the film’s dialogue or story at later times.
what i didn’t like: the film’s dialogue repeats itself (a little burdensome) when the theme of “why” or a “motive of one’s action” might be asked…the writer/director wants us to believe that the “why” doesn’t matter because even after the facts, people believe what they want to believe and “you are who you are”…the “why” was answered by hanssen, when he states to o’neil “i do matter, plenty.” it’s not the logic or theme i’m upset with… it’s the unbelievable quick transformation of hanssen’s character from that point of “i do matter, plenty” to the understanding after he is arrested that the only thing people will remember about him is not his reason for spying (criticizing the fbi’s lack of security and intelligence) but rather that he was/is a spy. the transformation of o’neil’s character from asking why he should keep his stressful job of observing hanssen as he contemplates quitting (which justifies the part played by bruce davison as eric’s dad, john) to accepting his job unconditionally further exploits the unnatural rush of characterization in the film. also, hanssen’s transformation from always being in control to barely hanging on was also a bit rushed and not totally believable (due to a lapse in screenplay). the role of dan plesac, played by dennis haysbert, was totally unnecessary in the film. phillippe’s performance in the “shooting in the woods scene” was absolutely horrible…just a bunch of yelling and forced lines that totally came out unnaturally.
my conclusion: a very tactical and typical plot film with a few subtle and some not so subtle themes (ex. “lying” and “does what we do matter?”) to be made, another strong performance by cooper and linney, decent screenplay with a few exhilarating scenes and a non-invasive director to get the story told without any biased influence
for a "professional" written review, go to roeper's review here
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Good Night & Good Luck (2005)
about the film: behind the scenes of ed murrow's cbs television shows see it now and person to person shot as a fictional black and white filmed account of what all was involved in the decision making of cbs executives regarding the airing of ed murrow's exploitation of senator mccarthy's tactics in the early 1950's
what i liked: strathairn's portrayal of murrow (dead on), choice to film in high contrast black and white (enhances the 1950's feel to the movie), the action captured in preparing the individual broadcasts (unfortunately the only substantial and significant "movement" in the film), the set design, costumes and props (period pieces are always hard to pull off, but the trademark names of the day {ex. westinghouse} were abundant and helped in creating the 1950's era feel), choice to use footage of mccarthy instead of an actor (no one can play mccarthy better than himself), use of light, shadows and smoke (the use of all three are the insignia/trademark of the film and give what little art this film can claim to contain)
what i didn't like: the overall plot was very weak (murrow challenges mccarthy, mccarthy gets censured but keeps his job and murrow loses his job, yeah all this happened in real life but what was filled in between those big beats using artist liberties was a let down to the audience...also what the hell was the point of joe & shirley's "b" plot for?), this was a persuasive piece by clooney as a writer and director (the liberties as a director/artist were exploited by the interpretations made by clooney and the co-writer helsov regarding murrow's own personal thoughts and desires...murrow is a tool used by them to persuade to their audience 1. the importance of impartial journalism on tv {clooney was a journalist at one time, like his father} and 2. the role advertisers play in the decision making of a network tv executive ...i have to question if this birth of broadcasting the "importance of impartial journalism" via murrow's attack on mccarthy and the role in which tv advertisers play in the decision making of a tv network executive is actually film worthy...the fact that it all took place on tv in the 1950's doesn't warrant it to be made into a film in our day and age...it almost seems as if clooney is trying to say by revisiting murrow's fight against mccarthy that this same theme is revelant today in that the present US government {aka Bush} is on a witch hunt for terrorists much the same way mccarthy was on a witch hunt for communists...is this film then meant to be persuasive? is it just art? or is it entertainment? i choose to believe it is not the 2nd or the 3rd), it was very tightly filmed or claustrophobic in its style (i'm not sure but i believe that almost every scene took place inside, the one scene where joe's character received an envelope was captured in a court building of some sort and that was the lightest {opposite of heavy} scene that seemed to breathe a little bit...and just before that there were some camera men running up the outside steps of that same building but the pace of the shot was so fast, you couldn't capture the feeling of being outside...the narrow choice of set design that was chosen was well executed but limited the ability of the film to achieve anything beyond forcing two or more people in a room having to talk their way through an already weakened plot)
my conclusion: i don't think this story should have ever been made into a film. that said, i think the direction and cinematography were well crafted but the choice of set design (not its execution) and weak plot took away from what little life that was portrayed on screen. also noted strathairn's best performace since delores claiborne and quite possibly his career defining role.
for a "professional" written review, go to ebert's review here
for a "professional" voice recorded review, go to npr's review here
what i liked: strathairn's portrayal of murrow (dead on), choice to film in high contrast black and white (enhances the 1950's feel to the movie), the action captured in preparing the individual broadcasts (unfortunately the only substantial and significant "movement" in the film), the set design, costumes and props (period pieces are always hard to pull off, but the trademark names of the day {ex. westinghouse} were abundant and helped in creating the 1950's era feel), choice to use footage of mccarthy instead of an actor (no one can play mccarthy better than himself), use of light, shadows and smoke (the use of all three are the insignia/trademark of the film and give what little art this film can claim to contain)
what i didn't like: the overall plot was very weak (murrow challenges mccarthy, mccarthy gets censured but keeps his job and murrow loses his job, yeah all this happened in real life but what was filled in between those big beats using artist liberties was a let down to the audience...also what the hell was the point of joe & shirley's "b" plot for?), this was a persuasive piece by clooney as a writer and director (the liberties as a director/artist were exploited by the interpretations made by clooney and the co-writer helsov regarding murrow's own personal thoughts and desires...murrow is a tool used by them to persuade to their audience 1. the importance of impartial journalism on tv {clooney was a journalist at one time, like his father} and 2. the role advertisers play in the decision making of a network tv executive ...i have to question if this birth of broadcasting the "importance of impartial journalism" via murrow's attack on mccarthy and the role in which tv advertisers play in the decision making of a tv network executive is actually film worthy...the fact that it all took place on tv in the 1950's doesn't warrant it to be made into a film in our day and age...it almost seems as if clooney is trying to say by revisiting murrow's fight against mccarthy that this same theme is revelant today in that the present US government {aka Bush} is on a witch hunt for terrorists much the same way mccarthy was on a witch hunt for communists...is this film then meant to be persuasive? is it just art? or is it entertainment? i choose to believe it is not the 2nd or the 3rd), it was very tightly filmed or claustrophobic in its style (i'm not sure but i believe that almost every scene took place inside, the one scene where joe's character received an envelope was captured in a court building of some sort and that was the lightest {opposite of heavy} scene that seemed to breathe a little bit...and just before that there were some camera men running up the outside steps of that same building but the pace of the shot was so fast, you couldn't capture the feeling of being outside...the narrow choice of set design that was chosen was well executed but limited the ability of the film to achieve anything beyond forcing two or more people in a room having to talk their way through an already weakened plot)
my conclusion: i don't think this story should have ever been made into a film. that said, i think the direction and cinematography were well crafted but the choice of set design (not its execution) and weak plot took away from what little life that was portrayed on screen. also noted strathairn's best performace since delores claiborne and quite possibly his career defining role.
for a "professional" written review, go to ebert's review here
for a "professional" voice recorded review, go to npr's review here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
