As far as contemporary romantic comedies go, this movie is definitely one of the best. Staring Cher and a young Nicholas Cage, this film has a subtle humour that works consistently. I think it was the writing that won me over in the first 20 minutes. Cher initially is planning on marrying Cage's brother, but the situation is altered, Cher meets Cage, and they fall in love.
What I liked about this film is that Cher acts kind of butch, making her character stand out from all those willowy girly-girls that seem to be in most romantic comedies these days. The film also takes place in NYC, in the little Italy area, so all the characters have heavy italian accents, which is hilarious.
The visible age difference between Cher and Nicholas Cage, is not played with during the film, which i found odd, because it could have been part of a number of their conversations. Both actors performed very well, and I admit Cage was really cute back then.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Souvenirs of Canada (2006)
I thought this was a sweet movie. Based on the visual art book by Douglas Coupland, the film follows Coupland as he creates a shrine to Canada, and interacts with his family. It's a nice mixture neither feeling too historical, or too saccharine. The chemistry between Coupland and his family is quaint, but performative to the camera.
What I enjoyed about this film is that Broken Social Scene and The New Pornographers are both on the soundtrack. It made me feel pride for being a Canadian, for it's idiosyncrasies. The nature, the vast wilderness, and pop culture that seems long time lost.
I recommend this film because it doesn't feel like a history lesson at all, but you learn to appreciate what Canada is. Running at only 70 minutes long, it's clean and concise.
What I enjoyed about this film is that Broken Social Scene and The New Pornographers are both on the soundtrack. It made me feel pride for being a Canadian, for it's idiosyncrasies. The nature, the vast wilderness, and pop culture that seems long time lost.
I recommend this film because it doesn't feel like a history lesson at all, but you learn to appreciate what Canada is. Running at only 70 minutes long, it's clean and concise.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Play Time (1967)
Wow, this movie was really something special! I really mean that. There were times when I loved what was going on, there were times I got lost in it's magic, and there were times when I wanted to pull my hair out because it was frustrating me to no ends.
This film, is honestly like no film I have seen before. I was originally a bit weary to see it because I had the impression that Tati was somewhat avant-garde and elitist, and he is to a degree, but you have to let go of your expectations before coming in to see his films.
There's an intense starkness that he employs in his composition, which takes some getting used to. But what grabbed my attention is that his shots look like they're photographs with moving elements. And I know believe there's difference between good cinematography and good photography in a film. Tati never moves the camera, but he doesn't have to because he's able to fill the screen with all the important action. Lots of times he has 2 or 3 different actions going on with different characters, which probably requires multiple viewings.
His narrative is also very different from what I'm used to. He doesn't seem to have any cause and effect present, but is able to build on what is going on, so that he viewer doesn't know what is going to happen next. The film, over the course of the 2 hours follows two people in a fake Paris; a gentleman who is trying to meet someone for an interview/meeting, and a woman who is in town with a tourist group. The two eventually meet and have a connection.
The part of this film that made me want to tear my hair out is the lack of dialogue in the film. One of my favourite attributes in film is banter between characters. Watching a film that has characters only mumble a few phrases here and there, with not much exchange from other characters was frustrating.
In essence I recommend this film because it is really different than other comedic films. The jokes themselves have been done by others but there's a spontaneity/unrehearsed feel to what you see. Definitely enjoyable.
This film, is honestly like no film I have seen before. I was originally a bit weary to see it because I had the impression that Tati was somewhat avant-garde and elitist, and he is to a degree, but you have to let go of your expectations before coming in to see his films.
There's an intense starkness that he employs in his composition, which takes some getting used to. But what grabbed my attention is that his shots look like they're photographs with moving elements. And I know believe there's difference between good cinematography and good photography in a film. Tati never moves the camera, but he doesn't have to because he's able to fill the screen with all the important action. Lots of times he has 2 or 3 different actions going on with different characters, which probably requires multiple viewings.
His narrative is also very different from what I'm used to. He doesn't seem to have any cause and effect present, but is able to build on what is going on, so that he viewer doesn't know what is going to happen next. The film, over the course of the 2 hours follows two people in a fake Paris; a gentleman who is trying to meet someone for an interview/meeting, and a woman who is in town with a tourist group. The two eventually meet and have a connection.
The part of this film that made me want to tear my hair out is the lack of dialogue in the film. One of my favourite attributes in film is banter between characters. Watching a film that has characters only mumble a few phrases here and there, with not much exchange from other characters was frustrating.
In essence I recommend this film because it is really different than other comedic films. The jokes themselves have been done by others but there's a spontaneity/unrehearsed feel to what you see. Definitely enjoyable.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
This movie was even more blah than the previous HP. These movies are impossible to shrink into under 3 hours long. I was thinking after I left the movie a smart (but less profitable) idea would be to convert the HP books into a serial (for tv, or even in movie installments). HP books, as anyone who has read them, are plot driven with loads of content, including two or three subplots that enhance the main thread. In the present movies, there are no subplots, and even the main narrative is watered so thin that you feel like you're watched a 2.5 hour summary of the novel, geez.
I was also very disappointed that the supporting characters got hardly no screen time. A person feels like they have no relevance being there, and that the actors could be using their time for better acting opportunities (ie alan rickman, emma thompson, maggie smith etc.).
In essence, these films do the book no justice. In the ending credits it said "Based on the novel by J.K. Rowlings" which does make sense, and does defend how so much is taken away from the story.
Worst disappointment: NO QUIDDITCH SCENES! wtf that's the best part of the books
I was also very disappointed that the supporting characters got hardly no screen time. A person feels like they have no relevance being there, and that the actors could be using their time for better acting opportunities (ie alan rickman, emma thompson, maggie smith etc.).
In essence, these films do the book no justice. In the ending credits it said "Based on the novel by J.K. Rowlings" which does make sense, and does defend how so much is taken away from the story.
Worst disappointment: NO QUIDDITCH SCENES! wtf that's the best part of the books
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
