Search This Blog

Showing posts with label kirsten dunst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kirsten dunst. Show all posts

Friday, July 28, 2017

The Beguiled (4/5 Stars)



In the midst of the American Civil War, on an abandoned Southern plantation, there remains a girls school, seemingly marooned from the world. It is headed by Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) and employs one teacher named Edwina (Kirsten Dunst). She teaches five girls ranging from eight years old to an almost adult named Alicia (Elle Fanning). One day the youngest girl finds an injured Union soldier on the road named Corporal McBurney (Colin Farrell). He is taken into the plantation where the women go about nursing him back to health.

According to the dictionary, to beguile means to “charm or enchant (someone), sometimes in a deceptive way.” The titular “Beguiled” in this movie is perhaps everybody in it. It is a case study in very polite sexual tension. It is not just that Colin Farrell is handsome, and he is, or that the house is full of hospitable southern women who are quite beautiful, and they are, it is that there are several dynamics in between all the characters playing at once. The union soldier is injured so he must rely on the women. But the women are trained by the culture and the time period to acquiesce to the man. But the number of women in the house far outnumber the man. But the women are competing amongst themselves for the man’s attention.

It is a credit to the writing and direction of this movie, that the above does not drown itself in melodrama. Instead through very fine attention to detail and pointed understatement the situation hovers between absurdity and suspense. There is something funny about the women offering the man a home-cooked meal (“would you like some pie, corporal? It’s my special recipe.”) at a dinner they have all dressed too much up at, and also something sinister about it given that any actual sexuality would have drastic consequences. The consequences again are on several levels: The impropriety of such a lady-like institution harboring any such sensual situation, the jealous competition between the ladies themselves, and then there is the war waging outside that technically makes the man and all the women sworn enemies.

The Director is Sofia Coppola, who based her screenplay off a previous movie of the same title. (I bet this remake is much better.) Ms. Coppola perhaps more than anybody in the business is a good argument for nepotism. The thing is that, and if you ever watch interviews with Ms. Coppola perhaps you would agree with me, Ms. Coppola doesn’t really come off, forgive me, as a particularly interesting person. She comes off strikingly competent, yes, but way too literal to be engaging. For those who generally enjoy the insight of a director's interview, Ms. Coppola has a way of making it seem like there is less to the movie than meets the eye. Of course, this shouldn’t be held against her because what counts is the movie and not her personality, and she does make good movies. I simply find it hard to believe that she could have risen through the ranks without her last name because its hard to believe she could ever successfully pitch a movie.

But whatever the reason she gets to make movies, it is a good thing that she does. Most directors aren’t like Sofia Coppola and her movies in turn are not like most. Just as nobody but Coppola would imagine a biopic about Marie Antionette without a beheading, here nobody would have had the follow-through to base a movie for such a sustained period of time on tiny movements, glances, and phrases that may or may not mean what they say they mean. Counter-intuitively, “The Beguiled” may be a movie you should see in a theater because it is small. If you saw it on Netflix, you might miss a good portion of what is happening.


When the movie finally does get dramatic it is very satisfying. The ensemble is perfectly cast. In particular, Nicole Kidman, as the head-mistress, and Elle Fanning, as a really bored girl, do well in their roles. Given the general dearth of good roles for women, I wouldn’t be surprised if this movie got multiple Oscar nominations for acting. And Colin Farrell again made me regret ever thinking he was bad actor. I take it back. I really like that guy.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Spiderman 3 05/19/07

I'm no comic book geek, nor do I stand in line to see every new comic book movie, but I can tell a good movie from a bad one. Spiderman 3 is astounding. A perfect capper to an already stunning trilogy. 
What usually hurts a superhero franchise is that the bad guys become indefinitely more interesting than the superhero. This has yet to happen in a Spider Man movie. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is still as fun to watch as ever. And his charachter grows ever more three dimensional. This time his arc is helped by Venom, a strange substance from a meteorite, that turns Parker into a much more aggressive Spidey. This is entertaining in its own sense since Parker is a nerd and takes alot of unheeded crap from people. So in this movie we relish in the revenge he dishes out. Although the film never quite makes us feel good about it. Good is good and bad is bad. There's morals in this one as with all Spiderman movies. So when Venom goes to far we all see that its hurting rather than helping and it makes the villains essentially even stronger than before.
And what villains. These aren't huge names here but are they ever the perfect choices. Thomas Haden Church brings a certain humanness to the brute Sandman. and Topher Grace my God! This kid blew me away. You would never expect him to be a villain like this, but he's perfect for this role. I can't see anyone else playing it as good. He's come along way. Look for him at next year's MTV movie awards. 
All in all my faith in sequels is being redeemed somewhat. I just have to make sure that its not only the movie's name that stays the same. But also the director (Sam Raimi), the writers (Sargent and Raimi) , the stars (Maguire, Dunst, Franco), and the right actors (Church and Grace) for the right roles. Not the big marketable names essentially, but the right ones. 
All of them do a fantastic job in a movie that has so much considerable range. Notice how they will pull a simple doorknob gag after a mind-blowing special effects sequence or take the time to watch Dunst sing or introduce a French maitre-di fully. Throughout the movie I felt I was watching seasoned veterans do what they do best.

Marie Antoinette 10/04/06

fresh: This is a perfect movie. As good as they come and as well made as they get. Like Gandhi or Mozart never will there be another movie about Marie Antionette. An ace in the hole this one is. It's perfect and complete. There is no need for another.
Why do I love it so: Two good reasons. Here we have a subject much like Paris Hilton, but instead of making fun of a person like that here we are invited to sympathise. This movie is not a criticism of Marie Antoinette as it easily could have been (How many of us bad mouth Paris Hilton), it is just a picture into her life. Her exhorbitant, extravagant, ridiculously dreamy life.
Sofia Coppola does an incredible feat and pulls off a story about a person who basically does nothing and is about nothing but lives in the most extravagant place in the world. I'm of course talking about the palace of Versailles, where the movie was shot. By the way, if there ever was a lock on oscar nods for costume, makeup, set design, and cinematography this movie has it. It is one of the best looking movies ever made. Having said that here's another feat. We have all these great specatacles but none of them overwhelm the story. ln fact most of the jokes are subtle, and brought to our attention by the great acting chops of Kirsten Dunst (who I haven't liked all that much in the past) and Jason Schwartzman (who is quickly becoming a seriously respected actor) who have the confidence to underplay their roles in order to create an absurdist atmosphere between the normal people they are and the ridiculous wealth that is bestowed upon them. For us history buffs, recognition of those tiny bits of reality that poke their head into the movie at various times are especially gratifying.
All of this goes back to Sofia Coppola's direction. From what I saw this movie is flawless. From the transitions through montages to the modern rock music to the unabashed American accents, everything works in this film. Like her fathere she has great visual style and although I probably could not quote a great deal of lines from the movie, I could describe many a great shot of artistic and visual delights from ballroom dancing, to morning breakfast, to fireworks, to sunrises. Many people complained about the lack of a guillotine but I think the last shot says it all. I didn't find anything at all wrong with it.
Here's the second reason. Not only is this movie great, it's important. It's important because this type of movie is very rare. It is about a woman written and directed by a woman. It has a feminime touch to it. Not saying that this is better just saying its not prevalent. As we know most movies are about men, they are directed by men and they are written by men. Even in a movie about Queen Elizabeth or Joan of Arc, most of the characters are men. This movie is different. Most of the supporting characters are woman. This is great since it gives great character actresses such as Molly Shannon and Asia Argento worth while roles that usually don't exist. 
I was not completely blown away by "Lost in Translation" but this movie proved to me that Sofia has earned a seat at the table with all the other A-list directors. I'm calling at least an Oscar nod for her directing. Best picture nod might be a stretch.