Tar (3/5 Stars)

Tar, written and directed by Todd Field (his first movie in over 15 years), is about a renowned conductor of symphony orchestras, Lydia Tar, played here by Cate Blanchett. It is a strange movie, not necessarily in content or tone, but in construction and point of view. 

In the wake up #MeToo, we have all heard various stories of executives that have abused their power to gain sexual favors from female subordinates. In real life, we hear these stories from the outside. We are not in the room where it happens and by default such stories have a he said/she said quality to them. A fictional movie like Tar though is not constrained to an outsider’s view. Because the writer/director has the ability to create what went on in the room, there doesn’t need to be any uncertainty involved as to what happened. The strange thing about “Tar” is that the movie is told from the inside, that is, it is told from Lydia Tar point of view, it follows her around in the privacy of her apartment and is present during confidential conversations. But even so, the scandal in question involving an allegation of abuse of an up and coming conductor, is never shown or explained in any detail. This leads to a strange viewing experience because we see Lydia Tar reacting to the outside world reacting to the vague rumors of a scandal, but we don’t actually know whether what the world thinks happened in that room is actually true or not.

This is one of those movies a certain type of movie critic loves because it allows them to interpret it however they wish (and thus show off their considerable skills in interpretation). I am not one of those critics. I am compelled to reveal that I spent a considerable amount of this movie confused as to what I was watching. The unexplained scandal is only one aspect of the confusion I had. I also had a hard time telling who it was Lydia Tar was talking to in any given scene. Near the beginning, she had a polite dinner with a character whose name I didn’t quite catch but who is played by Mark Strong. This character played by Mark Strong had some position in the orchestra but I didn’t pick up on what it was, or I did, but didn’t know what the position meant. Really, all I knew about the guy was that he must be wearing a wig because Mark Strong, the actor, is famously bald.

Not that the movie is being deliberately vague about that scene, it just isn’t all that helpful either. I have a feeling that if I knew a lot about symphony orchestras, I could probably have picked up on what they were talking about, and, in turn, its political undercurrent. I think that symphony orchestras, being bastions of elitism, are probably run in the discreet and indirect manner that shows up on the screen here. In this world, Lydia Tar, a direct and dominant personality, bullies her way through people, perhaps not realizing that what is left unsaid will find its way back to her. 

Other times, I think the movie should have helped me a little bit. I know part of this movie takes place in New York City because I know that Juliard is located there and I recognize some of the streets and buildings. But this movie also takes place in a city where most people speak German. It was not clear to me where that was and there were no scenes of travel between locations. (The movie opens with a train scene, but you can’t get to Germany from NYC by train. So…) Lydia Tar has more than one residence, that much I picked up on. I couldn’t tell you on what side of the Atlantic Ocean either one of those residences were located.

I did grasp how Lydia Tar went about seducing her charges. In one scene, she takes a young cellist out to lunch and gives her information unknown to the rest of the orchestra, that Tar is going to choose a piece of music for the upcoming performance, which includes a cellist solo. This young cellist goes out and gets a head start practicing for the solo. Then Tar tells the orchestra the news and asks the lead cellist in front of everyone whether or not they should have auditions. The lead cellist, confined by politeness, has to agree. Then Tar schedules the audition for early the next week and asks the lead cellist if that is enough time. The lead cellist, confined by politeness, has to agree. The audition itself is blind, that is the listeners cannot tell who is playing the cello behind a large partition. But one cellist is clearly better than the other, and, lo and behold, it turns out that the better one is the young cellist that Tar wants to seduce.

It is a good question here as to whether Lydia Tar has taken advantage of the young cellist. There doesn’t appear to be any objection on the young cellist’s part. What is clear is that Tar has unfairly manipulated the lead cellist and has been dishonest and disrespectful to the orchestra. What this movie might be about ultimately is not about the comeuppance due a person in power for their taking advantage of a subordinate, but how an organization fights back and expels such a person for her crimes against the whole.

Of course, if this movie was about the latter, you would think that Todd Field would show scenes of people in the orchestra plotting the downfall of Lydia Tar. But we don’t see that. The movie stays with Cate Blanchett the entire time. She seems oblivious to the machinations around her until it is already too late. I am reminded by the last quarter of Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon wherein the title aristocrat is shunned by his peers but no one actually tells him that it has happened.

Overall, the way everyone scurries about outside the frame doing things for reasons they will never articulate, reminds me of all the more annoying people I know in real life. A part of me thinks Lydia Tar will be happier having nothing to do with them. She loses everything it appears, except the work and the music, and perhaps that is what really matters to someone like her. In one scene, she goes way out of her way to eloquently and publicly defend the music of Bach against the charge that he is white and male. Who knows? Maybe she is entirely innocent.

Cate Blanchett has been one of our best actresses since she played Queen Elizabeth at the age of 28. She has considerable talent as an actress and cuts a striking figure but, unlike most big name actresses, has never really been sexy. Not being known for sexiness is a boon to the aging actress, and not unlike Meryl Streep, it lends Blanchett a gravitas that will likely have her hoovering up all the best roles for women (and men, see I’m Not There) past a certain age. Meryl Streep was 57 when she played Miranda Priestly in The Devil Wears Prada, a role that finally made her a bankable star to a wide audience. It is fair to say that Streep’s career has been as strong as ever for the past 20 years since she turned 50. Cate Blanchett is now 53 and I think it is very plausible that she will have a Streep-esque run in the next 20 years that will have her doing some of her best work. She’s already played a Queen. It’s only a matter of time before she plays a President. That is not to say her range is limited to power roles. She also did a great job this year playing an incompetent hairdresser in Documentary Now’s Two Hairdresser’s in Bagglyport. Blanchett can do anything.

Nightmare Alley (3/5 Stars)

“Nightmare Alley” was directed by Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth, The Shape of Water) and adapted from a novel that had earlier been made into a movie in the 1940s (I haven’t seen it). Ostensibly it is a horror film, but it felt more like the devolving efforts of Tim Burton, that is, much competent and loving attention is paid to the macabre look of the film, the creepiness of carnivals, the moodiness of 1930s-1940s noir style and fashion, but not so much to the underlying emotional landscape. In other words, Nightmare Alley looks like it might be scary, but it isn’t.

The movie looks very good on paper. It has a large talented cast including Bradley Cooper and Rooney Mara in romantic leads, Cate Blanchett as a psychiatrist/femme fatale, Willem Dafoe as an unscrupulous carnival operator. In supporting roles are Toni Collette, Richard Jenkins, Ron Perlman, and David Strathairn. It has great production design and costumes and in general, looks really good. The writing is at its most interesting when carnival techniques are explored. In particular, the David Strathairn character is a mentalist, that is a person who can read other people’s minds (and perhaps communicate with ghosts). Mentalists cannot actually read minds, but like magic in general, sometimes the technique and artistry of how they appear to do so is just as interesting or even more so than the act demanded to be believed. Stanton Carlisle (Bradley Cooper) shows up to the carnival as a no-name drifter. He does odd jobs until he becomes involved with Pete (David Strathairn) and his wife Zeena the Seer (Toni Collette). Soon they begin to teach him the art of mentalism. These details, and later scenes in which Stanton Carlisle performs a mentalist show in front of a well-heeled audience in Chicago, are the best in the movie.

What seems to be the problem is that the movie has no hook. As such, the plot progresses without anticipation and/or suspense. We are presented with Stanton Carlisle, a man with no background, and must take him as he is. As he is a poor drifter, my first inclination is to want him to gain a living. Stanton Carlisle starts learning and performing mentalism, first in an emergency situation and then as real bona fide act. The movie appears to frown upon this, with a character or two making vague suggestions that he don’t get into the ghost part of the business. My first inclination is that I support him in his new venture. Stanton woos a fellow circus performer Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara) and proposes that they ditch the carnival and move their mentalism show to Chicago where they will make lots more money and live in a nice hotel. The movie appears to frown upon this. Bruno, the strongman in the carnival, (Ron Perlman), tells Stanton to stop being so friendly with the girl and that he is watching him. My first inclination is that Molly works for a carnival. She should take this opportunity to make more money with Bradley Cooper, who is nice enough, good-looking and ambitious.

It is hard to say, but I’m not sure the movie was aiming at my first inclinations. I think Guillermo del Toro wanted instead some sense of growing dread that the whole thing wouldn’t turn out so good. If this is the case, I think he miscast Bradley Cooper, who wasn’t giving off “bad guy” vibes at all. Moreover, when things do go wrong, they don’t quite seem to have the proper motivation. Like, I don’t understand what Dr. Lillith Rader’s (Cate Blanchett) motivations are, or why Stanton, if he is assuming she is untrustworthy, would trust her so blindly. I also didn’t get why Stanton starts drinking whiskey after swearing that he never touches the stuff, or after all the inevitable bad things happen, why Stanton doesn’t just start over. I mean, isn’t he at the end of the movie exactly where he was at the beginning. Why are there no options? Why doesn’t he just move his mentalist act to Canada? Perhaps there are explanations but I did not pick up on them.

The movie seems to want to say something about a certain set piece of a carnival show: the geek. This is a guy that goes in front of everyone and bites the heads off of chickens. The geek we see is unkempt, dirty, and wild. I thought for certain he may have a mental disability. Instead, it is explained that he is an alcoholic that Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe) surreptiously got hooked on heroine. (If this is the case though, why can’t the geek speak a language. Here his ability to communicate is limited to grunts and screams.) In this way, the movie appears to be saying that even Stanton Carlisle. who once successfully swore off drink, worked hard, wooed a beautiful girl, and performed as a perfectly fine mentalist, could subsequently become so degraded by life as to become a carnival geek. I’m sorry, I don’t buy that, which ultimately means, that I didn’t get the whole point of this movie. Oh well, they can’t all be winners.

Thor: Ragnarok (4/5 Stars)

For those that felt Thor would be more entertaining if his tragic flaw was stupidity as opposed to pride (see my review of “Thor”) and did not bother seeing the second movie because it looked more stilted and oppressive than the first, the third movie in the “Thor” saga is exactly the course-correction the character and story sorely needed.

One half of the story is business-as-usual. There is a political crisis in Asgaard. Odin has finally died (or has he?) and his long-lost daughter, Hella, played by none other than Cate Blanchett, has come back from the throne. As she is Odin’s eldest issue and apparently was his right-hand person in establishing Odin’s empire, she has a pretty good argument for being Queen. Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth, and his brother Loki, Tom Hiddleston, aren’t going for it though and try to start a fight. She defeats them handily and even crushes Thor’s mighty hammer.

Thor lost his hammer in the first movie, but whereas in that movie the event inspired soul-searching and just a little bit of crying, in this movie Thor’s loss of his hammer merely serves to knock a few power notches off the characters ability points so the fights he undertakes afterwards are fairer and funnier. Thor finds himself on a garbage dump planet ruled by the Grandmaster, Jeff Goldblum, who specializes in providing gladiatorial contests. The whole scene feels like the color scheme and outgoing nature of “Guardians of the Galaxy” has been injected into the Thor universe (or that Thor has taken a vacation in the “Guardians of the Galaxy” universe for a spell.) This works much better than one would perhaps think. Thor has never been especially funny, but becomes quite useful for initiating and returning jokes in this movie. It helps that Chris Hemsworth is an underrated comic actor and is particularly good at being a dumb blonde hunk (see the recent “Ghostbusters” reboot).

Surrounding Thor in the trash world are other routinely funny characters. Jeff Goldblum, an inspired piece of casting if there ever was, is essentially playing a meme-version of himself. Given that he is technically the bad guy, his weirdly punctual way of stilted speaking deprives any sense of foreboding in the story. He enters Thor in a non-consensual gladiatorial contest. There Thor meets a rock giant named Korg whose accent and style of speaking is reminiscent of the “The Flight of the Conchords.” That is no mistake. He is voiced by a director of that series, Taika Watiti, who also is the director of this movie. Thor also meets the reigning champion, none other than the Incredible Hulk, who has eschewed his Dr. Jekkyl-Bruce Banner persona for a running two years because this garbage planet actually likes the other guy. Thor without his hammer is a bit like Superman consistently surrounded by Kryptonite. It brings him down to earth where Hemsworth comic abilities allow the rest of us to laugh at him. It also helps that they shaved off his pretentious long hair.

The battle scenes in Thor: Ragnarok are spectacular and not so cringe-inducing as most other blockbuster movies. I’ve complained ad infinitum about nameless and countless humans being destroyed in great movie spectacles of violence without anyone in the story particularly caring. This is less of a concern when the characters are gods and cannot actually die or get all that much hurt. The gladiatorial contest between Thor and The Hulk is especially pleasurable.

Given that one-half of the movie is consistently funny and fun to be around, the other half seems to lull in parts. This has got to be the first time that I have written that Cate Blanchett does not inhabit the most interesting part of a movie. Here it is true, but it is mainly because the Thor-Hulk story-line is so entertaining. I got a great kick out of it and look forward to the next Thor movie.

p.s. If Thor is the God of Thunder and he can summon thunderbolts, why would he not be immune to tasers that use electric shocks.

Knight of Cups (2/5 Stars)

I don’t like movies that require reading to understand it. I suspect “Knight of Cups” is that type of movie. Specifically it may have been a good idea to read “Pilgrim’s Progress.” It is quoted directly several times. Is this an adaptation of that book? I don’t know, maybe?

“Knight of Cups” was directed by Terrance Malick and ostensibly written by him as well. I say ‘ostensibly’ because the actors seem to be walking in and out of scenes improvising without a script. Malick consistently uses a narrative device somewhat unique to him throughout the film. You have seen him do it before in a movie like “The Thin Red Line.” He employs poetic voiceover over the eye of a wandering camera. It provides a celestial quality to a scene especially those that are hectic and that have the original audio cut from it. This worked so well in “The Thin Red Line,” because the underlying action was very easy to understand. In was a WWII movie that involved an army trying to take a Pacific Island. The voiceover commented on the scene but never needed to explain what was happening. The story was very clear in that respect. “Knight of Cups,” however (and Malick’s last two films as well “The Tree of Life” and “To the Wonder”) employs this device without the simple plotline and the effect is quite different. It feels like it is being used to cover up bad directing in the editing room. There are plenty of “scenes” in which actors walk around improvising dramatic situations in desperate need of some direction. Since everything is cut up and entwined with vines of excess cinematography and voiceover it is hard to tell what they scenes are about, but that may just be hiding the fact that they might not actually be about anything. This movie perhaps means something to Malick but he sure didn’t feel the need to explain it to me.

It’s a beautiful movie of course. The cinematographer is Emmanuel Lubezki, winner of the Academy Award three years in a row. His target this time is Los Angeles and the areas that surround it. The camera follows a writer, played by Christian Bale. He doesn’t look or act successful but apparently he very much is. He is invited and attends many gorgeous parties in lots of mansions. He spends time with an assembly line of models. Among them are Cate Blanchett, Natalie Portman, Frieda Pinto, Imogen Potts, Teresa Palmer, and Isabel Lucas. And I haven’t mentioned yet the naked nameless ones. He has a manager that says something about making him richer than he already is.

Christian Bale does not particulary care about any of this and kind of walks about in a daze. That may indeed be Malick’s point: that this Hollywood lifestyle of riches and easy sex with beautiful women is ultimately unfulfilling. However that brings to mind the biggest question every critic who has seen the movie has had to ask: That is, if Terrance Malick does not like all these beautiful things (architecture and women and everything between), why did he expend so much effort to catalog it in this movie. He very much has an eye for it. One telling example is the Las Vegas roadtrip scenes. Terrance Malick may feel that Las Vegas architecture is fake, unfulfilling, and whatever but he goes about that sentiment in a very confusing way. He makes it look flat out gorgeous and then has Christian Bale walk around it totally unimpressed. This happens several times in the same way until the movie ends without the characters or the world changing in any significant way. 

The fact that Christian Bale is rich and respected, sleeps with many beautiful women, and hangs out at all these great parties will probably inspire envy in the normal viewer not the knowing spiritual yearning of a world weary philospher that perhaps Malick is trying to get at. This is nobody’s fault but Malick’s. It is fair to say the movie is “out of touch.”

I like his earlier work better. It is amazing how many great artists this can apply to. It is cliché but that does not mean it should not be examined. Perhaps it should be examined because it is so cliché, i.e. so common. After all, some artists (say Martin Scorsese or Tom Waits) never stop being great no matter how old they are. So what is Terrance Malick’s problem?

I suspect it follows from being known as a genius and then subsequently surrounding oneself by ‘yes men.’ It helps to have that asshole producer that will direct one to take the audience’s expectations and comprehension abilities into consideration when making your art. When one is making one’s name in the world, one cannot but help having this influence. No studio in their right mind would give a young unproven director money without an experienced producer looking over the shoulder. But sometimes a director gains a reputation for being great and there comes this notion that they can do no wrong and at some point all of their bad tendencies and indulgences flow through. Who was there to tell Quentin Tarantino that he could have an hour and a half of just talking before any action occurred in “The Hateful Eight.” Why doesn’t anybody explain to Michael Bay that action movies should not have running times of over two and a half hours? What the fuck is David Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive”? What is it???!?

“Knight of Cups” contains every beautiful technique that makes a Terrance Malick movie the unique special thing that a Terrance Malick movie is except the movie part. It’s an important part that movie part. I hope he remembers it next time.

Carol (4/5 Stars)

I suddenly have this strong urge to smoke cigarettes and drink martinis with my girlfriend in some fancy Manhattan restaurant.  

“Carol,” directed by Todd Haynes is based on Patricia Highsmith’s novel, “The Price of Salt.” It stars Cate Blanchett as the titular character and Rooney Mara as her significant other Terese Belivet.

They meet in a Manhattan department store. Terese works at the doll store counter. Carol, Christmas shopping for her daughter, asks Terese about what dolls young girls like. Terese says she doesn’t know. As a child she liked trains. Carol orders a train instead. She leaves, “forgetting” her gloves on the counter.

If that sounds like nothing on paper, it is because it is nothing on paper. “Carol” is a movie that lies between the lines. It is a study of glances and body language, costumes, set design, and score. I can only guess that the screenplay by Phyllis Nagy either makes no sense at all or has an absurd amount of writing in parantheticals. And it works the main reason being that the actors are so wonderful to stare at.

First is Cate the Great a case study in Screen Presence. Look at the way she smokes those cigarettes. A certain captivating elegance, grace shall we say, comes to mind. Second is Rooney Mara, whom I’ve described critically before (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) but now with much appreciation as soft all over. Innocence, thoughtfully composed, are some appropriate words. They are wonderful together.

The movie excels in all ways visual. It is aided in that quest by being set in the most glamorous part of the 1950s: Christmas in New York. The costumes are wonderful, the makeup is great, and the art direction is as good as it can be. Director Todd Haynes, like in his earlier great movie Far From Heaven, takes direct inspiration from 1950s melodramas and tries to get the colors and music as close as possible. It is a worthwhile ambition.

The conflict in the story is that they are a homosexual couple in the 1950s. Carol is already married with a child and Terese has a fiancé. Some humor is found when their respective men are confused by their company but not necessarily jealous because they do not understand that they could receive competition via another woman. This subject is hardly risqué at the present time (as opposed to say when Far From Heaven came out in 2002) but it should be noted that this does not hurt the story’s overall impact. It is good enough to the point where it does not need help from political expediency. Perhaps our changing times have even changed the ending. I remember Far From Heaven ending rather tragically. This movie ends with Cate Blanchett’s knowing smile. The movie is comfort food for all lovers.

Footnote: Does one’s sexual identity affect the way an audience member connects with a movie romance? I would submit it does. And for a heterosexual man it may be the case that a lesbian romance can be more affecting than a regular romance between a man and a woman. After all, the man can intuitively grasp why each person would fall in love with the other person. I saw this movie with my girlfriend and I have a feeling I had the advantage in enjoying it. Afterwards she commented on how the score was really loud and obvious. I did not notice the score so much and have little to say about it except to praise the choice of a certain song, “You Belong to Me.”

Hanna (4/5 Stars)

Once upon a time there was a very special girl who lived in the woods.

Hanna is the name of a teenage girl, played by Saoirise Ronan, who apparently has spent all of her life in the arctic somewhere with no other human contact but her father, played by Eric Bana. He has been training to be the ultimate warrior. She can hunt deer with bow or gun, she knows several languages, she is an expert at mixed martial arts, etc. etc. What is he preparing her for and why her? Well, we don’t really know because he never tells her and this movie more or less doesn’t explain anything until Hanna discovers it for herself. Events unfold. Her father tests her ability one day and finds her ready. He hands Hanna a honing device that will give away the position of their house in the woods if switched on. Hanna switches it on. Her father gives her instructions on how to be captured, kill the CIA agent on her case in her holding cell, make her escape by evading a SWAT team in an underground labyrinth, and to meet him in Berlin. The rest of the movie is the unfolding of that plan in various chases and fights. No doubt, the sheer ambiguity of what is going on dampens the suspense and urgency of “Hanna,” and one can see how this movie could have been downright awful. But there is behind this movie a very good director named Joe Wright who has been able to assemble a terrific cast and construct some damn good action sequences. Because this is the type of story that is impossible to know if it is worth watching until the end scenes finally provide some motivation for what you’ve just seen, the only way it can work in the meanwhile is if there is plenty to admire that can stand alone. There is. You can appreciate the clean crisp look of “Hanna.” You can admire the acting ability of Saoirise Ronan, who has created a character that is believably both an innocent and a killer. You can admire Cate Blanchett’s stoic style and screen presence. You can admire Tom Hollander’s ability to look dangerous in short shorts. You can admire the chases and fights all of which are logically edited, competently shot and choreographed, and develop within the thin overlapping lines of creativity and possibility. Finally the ending does make sense of the beginning and things that happened are justified. This is actually one movie that I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel to. Of course, I don’t mean another thriller like this. I’m thinking more along the lines of a comedy where Hanna tries to assimilate in the world and gets a job working at a carnival or something. I think that would be funny. Just throwing it out there.

This is Director Joe Wright’s first true action movie. It suits his style very well. In the past he has done dramas like “Pride and Prejudice” and “Atonement” but they have always felt and moved fast. Wright loves to move his camera around his characters in long shots. In “Hanna” there is an especially impressive fight scene with Eric Bana and five special agents in a Subway station. The camera tracks ahead of Bana as he enters station with an agent following him. As he walks forward the camera circles around Bana revealing adversaries on all sides. A fist-fight starts (hand to hand combat because the head bad guy wants Bana alive)  as the camera keeps on circling. This goes on until all the bad guys are incapacitated, at which point Bana picks up a dead bad guy’s phone, calls the last number and acquires some useful information as he is walking out of the station. The entire scene was done in a single unbroken camera shot. It must of required a hell of a lot of choreography, planning, and practice. This is something directors rarely do especially in fight scenes as it is much more work for something the audience might not notice anyway. (The point of long shots is to add realism to a scene. There isn't any movie cheating in a long shot because nothing is being edited.) But the fact that the director can pull it off at all is a testament to his coordination, skill, and ambition. That doesn't mean the technique can't be overused though. Wright's seemingly favorite thing to do in this movie is focus in on Ronan’s face as she is hurriedly going somewhere. Since the camera is moving quite a lot, the background of a shot is always changing and noticeably out of focus. It can get dizzying. But then again, it is a very watchable face to look at. It always looks like its viewing the world with heightened awareness. Go ahead and Google Saoirise Ronan before going to see this movie. If you find it objectionable in any way then “Hanna” is not the movie to see. You will be staring at her in close-ups for a substantial period of time. (Psst, I think Wright might be in love with Ronan...or at least her face)  

Playing the role of bad guy is Cate Blanchett, a CIA agent intent on capturing Hanna. She is exceedingly impeccable in this movie. There isn't a single blemish or a hair out of place. She looks like she's been carved out of alabaster marble and fitted with a fiery red wig. Cate the Great gives off a natural fierceness but unfortunately never goes over the top. I’m still waiting for a performance from her that matches that one line about being a hurricane in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” but goes on for an entire movie. I can definitely see her in the type of role that a Jack Nicholson would play. One of her hired henchmen is Tom Hollander, playing against type as an unstable mercenary with a strange sense of fashion. He does good work as well. This is his third movie working with Wright who has only made four movies. They make a good team. There is also a family on vacation that Hanna meets on the road and travels with for part of the journey. The mom is Olivia Williams who you may remember as the teacher in “Rushmore.” The daughter is about Hanna's age. She quotes pop culture references as if they're important. I think it's a toss-up over who sounds more like a freak. Anyway the family provides a welcome human and comic element in between all of the chase scenes. In one side scene Hanna goes on a double date with the daughter and a couple of soccer players they meet at a campground. They listen to music, which Hanna has never heard before and then there is almost a kissing scene. Almost. I’m telling you this character would be great in a comedy. She reminds me of the aliens from “3^rd Rock from the Sun.”

All the Grimm Fairy tale stuff in the production design are a nice touch. It makes perfect sense for a child-in-danger movie. If you've ever read a un-Disneyfied version of any of the tales you will know what I mean. The Grimm's had literally no qualms about putting children in mortal danger.

p.s. Coming Soon! Hanna 2 - Death in Montana!

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3/5 Stars) 12/29/08

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button reunites Brad Pitt and Director David Fincher for the 1st time since 'Fight Club.' It tells the story of a man who ages in reverse. He is born eighty years old and slowly gets younger as he gets older. Why? The movie gives no real explanation. It just happens. Cate Blanchett plays Ben's childhood sweetheart, Daisy. Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) adapted the screenplay from a Fitzgerald short story.
The overall effect of this movie is a triumph of style over substance. Benjamin Button, as a person leads no extraordinary life (besides the whole aging in reverse thing) and isn't an incredibly interesting person. The strength in this movie lies in the gorgeous cinematography of Claudio Miranda, a haunting score by Alexandre Desplat, and the beauty and charms of the two leads Pitt and Blanchett.
Much of the joy in this movie is simply looking at the screen. Brad Pitt is a special actor. He has the unique ability to appear flat out gorgeous. At one point in the movie, Cate Blanchett sees him and says matter-of-factly "you're perfect." This line garnered laughs from the audience because it was the 1st time in the movie that Pitt wasn't wearing his digital makeup. In other words he looked like himself. and who else but Brad Pitt could make that line seem an appropriate thing to say. I will venture that the major draw to see this movie is the prospect of seeing a 25 year old Brad Pitt again. Unfortunately the technology needed for eternal youth on the silver screen is not completely there yet. The effects in this movie are ten times better than Beowulf, but the digital rendering still didn't fool me. Young Pitt didn't look completely natural. It was especially distracting when he talked. This is probably the reason why Young Pitt is kept in the shadows for most of the time and very sparingly used in closeups. He doesn't even take off his shirt. What a shame. 
Any digital effect used on Cate Blanchett on the other hand went completely unnoticed. And this is maybe a huge compliment because her character, when young, is a dancer, and I have trouble believing that a middle aged woman like Cate can move like that. I was looking everywhere for a stunt double but couldn't see her. So somebody deserves major kudos. Either the stunt double or Cate the Great herself because there is some beautiful ballet here. (For the record, Cate has broken the tie with Renee Zellweger to become my favorite actress. Amy Adams has also supplanted Renee at the two spot.)
As always with a David Fincher film, there is gorgeous cinematography. Or at least it looked like it should have been gorgeous. Let me explain. It has been said that the difference between shooting with a digital camera instead of a film camera is an intangible element called 'warmth.' I had never really noticed it until this movie. A lot of the scenes in this movie felt 'cold.' I am convinced it had nothing to do with the crew's competence, it simply is because they shot the movie digitally. I could tell because Fincher decided to go for a very rich and bold New Orleans look. For a good example of this style on film take a look at 'JFK' or 'Miller's Crossing.' This type of look intangibly looks better on film. I don't know why. It may seem nitpicky to criticize a movie for lack of 'warmth' but I did notice it and it did sort of bother me. 
Another thing I didn't like about the movie was the idea to have a dying woman narrate the story. Call me age-insensitive but the raspy and stuttering voices of the elderly are not the best for storytelling. I hadn't experienced such a bad storyteller since 'The English Patient.' And I don't see why they had to make Cate Blanchett so ugly and so out of breath. I don't understand why they needed her dying in the hospital at all. It is so unattractive and unappealing. Take it out altogether I say. There I just cut twenty superflous minutes out of a 2 hour and 45 minute movie without losing anything. Your welcome. 
I also have to point out that this is the second movie this year to have at least five funeral scenes. The other was "Syncedoche, New York." In terms of style "Benjamin Button" is superior because you get to stare at Brad Pitt getting prettier instead of Phillip Seymour Hoffman getting uglier. But in terms of substance, "Synecdoche" is much better than "Button." What "Button" only mentions in small vignettes "Synecdoche" delves into in great detail and a better discussion. The numerous funeral scenes are funnier and more thoughtful in "Synecdoche" than they are in "Button."
There is buzz that "Button" will garner a lot of Academy nominations. I don't agree with the buzz. I don't think it is good enough for Best Picture or Best Director. I have always been a fan of Brad Pitt and believed he has been snubbed before (Especially for 'Fight Club' 'Snatch' and 'Babel') but he shouldn't get a nomination for this role. Seriously, there isn't too much here and how many accolades should you receive simply by looking like yourself. I can see support nominations for cinematography, visual effects, original score, and Blanchett perhaps depending on whether it was indeed her who was dancing. But that's all.

Indiana Jones: The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 06/04/08

Indiana Jones is good enough. By that I mean it doesn't do what numerous sequels have done and make you wish the movie was never made at all. This movie is mediocre true, but at least Indy doesn't suffer a harsh fate like the Bruce Willis' John McClane (Die Hard) whose wife divorces him before every sequel or Tommy Lee Jones' Agent K (Men in Black) who also gets dumped as a sacrifice to an inferior sequel. The worst perhaps was Sigourney Weaver's tragic fate between Aliens and Alien 3. At least Harrison Ford's entire family doesn't die nor is he somehow impregnated with a killer ET. Instead Indy is reunited with an old flame from the 1st movie, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), and they actually hit it off together. How sweet. 
It's also good to note that Spielberg's fun action chops are still in good form also. There are a duo of good chases sequences, a couple nice fist fights, and I especially liked the addition of man eating ants to the lexicon of snakes, bugs, and rats.
Shia LeBouf, although an actor I respect, doesn't scream action hero or greaser badass to me. I'm not sure who I would cast in his stead but I'd be surprised if there weren't a better unknown out there. Someone with a little more dangerous edge. Cate (the Great) Blanchett also leaves something to be desired as the Soviet dominatrix Dr. Irina Spalko. Try as she might I couldn't help but be reminded of that movie cliche 'the Implausibly tough girl.' Is it really believable that she can do all those physical feats with that skinny build.
Still Shia and Cate are never entirely unenjoyable. What huge flaw this movie has concerns the aliens, which in this movie take the place of earlier mystical stalwarts like God and Indian Voodoo. The problem with aliens though is that they don't come equipped with any real sense of purpose. I mean, I can understand why God hates Nazis or why a Cultish deity would desire blood sacrifice, but I don't get why aliens would especially dislike Soviets. I still don't understand how Cate actually met her fate or why the aliens would want to kill her. If Lucas and Spielberg could have given reasonable motivation to the ET's I think this movie could have been just as good as the other three. 
There is still plenty to like here though. I especially like the fifties stereotypes. The Anti-communist rally, the fight between the squares and greasers, and especially the completely unexpected involvement of a (Spoiler Alert!) nuclear blast. (Spoiler Ended) 
Almost Spielberg and Lucas Almost. They haven't killed the franchise yet by the way. They could conceivably make another one and I would probably find my way to seeing it. 

(The last movie I saw at the Odeon in Firenze)

Elizabeth: The Golden Age 12/18/07

Cate Blanchett is, of course, so totally awesome. She is one of the best actresses of our time not to mention one of my favorites. (Right now it's a tie between her and Renee Zellweger) The First Royal Elizabeth was the role she was born to play. She knocked it out of the park in the first movie, earning an oscar nomination and breaking out into the front ranks of cinematic actresses.
She returns to form in this sequel as an older Elizabeth. She very much looks the part, the costumes and makeup are stunning, the set decorecations command authenticity, and she speaks in a very regal tone of voice. If only she had something to say. This is without a doubt one of the biggest letdowns of the year.
It may even be one of the biggest letdowns ever. I had some seriously high expectations for this movie. On paper it looked fantastic. It had the same director of the first movie, the same stunning actress, and the addition of Clive Owen. And its not like this project would run afoul in the usual problems with sequels. Since this is a historical biopic, the plot is already taken care of. And what a plot: The Spanish Armada. There's enough here for an epic tale. How could anyone possibly screw this up. 
For one thing, the idiotic writers brought into central focus the one aspect of Elizabeth that was the least interesting, her love life. Imagine my surprise and chagrin when I realized I was witnessing a love triangle between Elizabeth, her lady in waiting, and Clive Owen. This is a travesty. What were they thinking? Elizabeth is a righteous babe, and Cate Blanchett is a terrific actress. There is one scene in this movie where she shouts fury at a Spanish ambassador. The line is, "I too can command the wind sir! I have a hurricane inside me that will strip Spain bare if you dare to try me!!!" This is incredibly cool, but then the next scene she is fretting over Mr. Owen and the Armada is completely forgotten. It isn't even really explained actually and the final battle isn't
really climatic because I didn't understand who was where and what the stakes actually were. Blanchett makes a speech to an infantry army, but those soldiers didn't actually fight in the battle for you see it was a naval battle. What is going on here? They really screwed the pooch. It's a super shame since this story deserves to be retold and this movie needs to be remade, except next time they probably won't be fortunate enough to get Cate Blanchett to play Elizabeth.

I'm Not There November 26, 2007

I'm glad I know a fair deal about Bob Dylan. I once saw a four hour documentary on the guy. If I hadn't seen that, for certain I would have been hopelessly lost in this movie. It doesn't even attempt to explain Bob Dylan's life in any sort of factual way. If you don't come into the movie knowing certain landmark plot points (say for instance, the significance of a motorcycle accident) then you will not have the slightest idea what is going on. The movie is a landmark experiment in the structure of a biopic. It uses five actors and one actress to portray fictionalized versions of the same man. To its credit the movie works well enough to transcend the gimmick into a theme. But its not perfect, and a movie that could have been one of the years best is only somewhat superior.
There are six stories basically. The goal I bet would be to give each one equal weight and edit flawlessly back and forth between them. They edited flawlessly but didn't succeed in making them all interesting. I'm sure everyone who sees this film will agree there is one storyline and Dylan that is far superior to the others. This is the electric Jude portrayed by Cate Blanchett in a role that is sure to be nominated. Filmed in a stark contrast black and white this story is the funniest and certainly most memorable. Blanchett is uncanny. She's even more uncanny when considering in her last movie she played Queen Elizabeth I. There are plenty of great moments.
The drawback of the other stories is that they share too many similar themes to this one. Take for instance the Ben Whishaw storyline which consists only of a press conference. There isn't enough here for a story. I think they should have split up the lines amongst the other actors.
The Heath Ledger storyline doesn't have enough dialogue in it to hold it up. It's baseless, I didn't know what to think about it.
The real shame of this movie was the misuse of the Christian Bale storyline. This described the early folk career of Bob Dylan, but it doesn't get close to it. It's told in mock documentary style. We see the man from a distance and instead get an interview with Joan Baez. I would have loved to get to know this Bob Dylan more. He did exist at one point. Instead they made this story the prelude to the Cate Blanchett story. Too bad. 
Another weird thing is that they didn't use any of Bob Dylan's really famous songs. The only ones I recognized were "Times are a Changing, Mr. Jones, and Idiot Wind." Everything else was new. I haven't the slightest idea why they didn't choose to include such classics like 'Girl From North Country, Hard Rain's A Gonna Fall, Don't Think Twice, It Aint Me Babe, Like a Rolling Stone, Blowin in the Wind, or Stuck in the Middle with you.' I don't think they would have been that distracting honestly, and the movie would have surely benefitted from them. 

Notes on a Scandal 03/27/07

Here we have the female version of Hannibal Lector. The yin of Judi Dench to Anthony Hopkin's yang. A true sociopath, much more passive, but just as cold. This movie made me cringe at times. Especially through Judi Dench's voiceovers. She has great lines to say and she outperforms them with perfection. They become crisp and clear, cutting and grating the airwaves of this film. True sociopathic poetry. 
Cate Blanchett also brings in an understated performance. She tones down everything that is special about her and presents the unknowing victim of this crime. Guilty herself of a scandal, but more innocent than Judi Dench's old witch. At least she has blood in her veins.
But does Judi Dench also. The most interesting thing about her charachter is it's dual cyclical nature. She doesn't like anyone and complains about them bitterly in her journals. She gives them nicknames and berates them constantly. This makes noone like her, which in turn makes her incredibly lonely which in turn fuels her bitterness towards people which isolates her and makes her more solitary.
This is one of those people you would hate to meet. Because most people, if they were smart enough to know their faults they would try to better themselves. This person is smart enough to know her own faults, knows them, but is determined to make the same mistakes over and over again. She just doesn't get it and everyone she meets suffers.

Babel 11/29/06

I liked this movie and I feel incredibly artsy fartsy saying that. I'm quite sure that if it hadn't been for the fact that I've already seen hundreds of movies, I probably wouldn't have understood this one at all. Having said that I almost didn't understand this movie. It was spoken in six different languages and the subtitles were in Italian. I must have missed half the words and weirdly I think that might have added to my enjoyment of the movie. I just assumed the dialogue was perfect and whatever was happening on the screen was completely motivated. 

Let's see, this movie had three stories. All only distantly connected, the Japanese story hardly connected at all to the other two. We had the Mexican-American story. The American-Morroccan story, and the Japanese story. Six languages, Spanish, English, Morrocan, French, Japanese, Japanese Sign Language. The coolest thing about this movie is that it respects our interest in different cultures. We get great cultural views from a Japanese dance club to a great Mexican wedding. If you can be interested in being a 'fly on the wall' as different kinds of people go about their lives then this movie is for you. If you're expecting something like Crash, which was what this movie was compared to, then you're in for some dissapointment. The storylines run parralel but never intersect. I wanted them to, but then again I liked each of the stories enough that I really didn't care in the end. I finally got why the movie was called Babel half way through. Language barriers.

The only two main actors I recognized were Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Both very good performances. Brad Pitt's characther reminds me alot of George Clooney's charachter in last year's Syriana. They both have beards and find themselves in a Muslim country among other things. He might get a nomination. I don't know. They gave the Oscar to Clooney didn't they.