Category Archives: British

Movie Review: Get Him to the Greek

2 Replies

Hollywood loves sequels. They love it. They’re a little too in love though. If Hollywood wants to continue banking off of franchise-worthy films, they should consider spin-offs over sequels. “Get Him to the Greek” shows that perhaps individual characters, and not entire plots, were meant to be seen again.

“Get Him to the Greek” uses the 2008 instant classic “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” as its starting point. It pulls away Aldous Snow (Russell Brand), the self-absorbed English rocker. Snow still exists in the same universe as “Sarah Marshall.” After the success of such songs as “Do Something” and “Inside of You,” his career was almost totally destroyed after the failure of the accidentally offensive “African Child.” And don’t worry, you will get your music video.
Snow also got married and divorced. After seven years of being sober, he took up drinking and drugs once again. Across the pond and an entire land mass over, Aaron Green (Jonah Hill) is a rising executive at a record label with a doctor girlfriend (Elisabeth Moss) that he rarely has time to share a moment with. Green is what Hill’s character in “Sarah Marshall” (who is totally different) would have become if Snow actually ever listened to his demo.
But the music business is changing. Green’s boss Sergio (Sean ‘P. Diddy’ Combs), who is always mad about something, wants a game changer. Green suggests the winning idea: bringing back Snow to do a show at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. The only catch is, Green has to get him himself and bring him from London to New York to Los Angeles in just 72 hours. Basically, it’s a good set-up that makes room for even better jokes.
The humor of “Get Him to the Greek” stems from a mixture of awkwardness and over-the-top gags. Sometimes, these two styles interact with one another. The awkwardness works because the actors play the characters that way, and the slapstick works because it’s well directed.
Yet, the one comedic aspect of “Get Him to the Greek” that could be considered close to brilliant is its satire of the music world and entertainment industry in general. Snow’s songs are always laced with innuendos. At another moment, Sergio plays the music he thinks will sell right now. It’s basically just a string of curse words, but it sounds nearly identical to modern mainstream rap. Satire is at its best when it seems too ridiculous to be true, but too truthful to be just a joke.
Like most of the other films in the Apatow oeuvre (Judd produced this), there is a strong reliance on the actors. And the actors deliver. This is Hill’s first true lead performance (in “Superbad” I’d say it was a co-leading performance), and with it he proves that he’s more than just the creepy guy in the background who does cringe-worthy things. What this kind of comedy needs to work (besides good jokes) is relatable characters. Green’s uptight nature feels genuine and not forced. Hill works to make him not only likable, but also hatable. He’s nice when he should be, and extremely selfish when he should be. Moss is essentially playing Peggy from “Mad Men” yet she adds a dash of humor to it which makes it very effective.
So Hill may be a great leading man, but there are two absolute scene stealers here. I thought from the time I first saw “Sarah Marshall” that Aldous Snow was a character worthy of his own movie, and he finally got it. He is transformed from ex-druggy musician to a character worthy of being in “Spinal Tap.” Some might call Brand’s performance effortless, because he is essentially playing himself. However, I enjoy performances like that because what it really means is that no other actor could play this character. It belongs distinctly to someone.
Brand makes the character real by adding little distinct features to him such as a pretentious way of pronouncing words and an even more pretentious walk. While his character is a huge jerk most of the time, there are little moments that make him seem relatable. Making a caricature relatable is what should be defined as fine acting.
I agree with many who are saying that Diddy’s Sergio deserves a movie of his own. His character is too big, bloated, and hilarious for one film. Diddy channels the angry boss role flawlessly. His performance reminded me of a variation of Malcolm Tucker from “In the Loop” with less of a good reason for being so angry all of the time.
“Get Him to the Greek” is written and directed by Nicholas Stoller. Like he also displayed in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall,” Stoller has this amazingly rare talent of creating a huge ensemble full of three dimensional characters.
While some of the backstories in “Greek” certainly don’t feel as original as the ones in “Sarah Marshall,” they no less bring understanding to the characters. And why, do you ask, is backstory so important in a comedy? Because it’s easier to laugh with people you like than people you despise. Green could’ve been nothing more than a selfish, cold businessman. Snow could’ve been nothing more than a self-absorbed and emotionless rock star. Yet, “Greek” is better than that. It doesn’t need to stoop down to that level.
“Get Him to the Greek” lacks some of the finer points of its predecessor, yet I find few things here I could really complain about. In a summer season that has so far been pretty tepid, “Greek” seems less interested in trying to sell something to you and more interested in actually trying to give you a good time at the movies. At that I say, it nobly succeeds.

TV Review: Skins

Leave a reply

I never thought I’d say this, but the world has found a new “Freaks and Geeks.” The late, great show has found its self reincarnated in the British show “Skins.” It’s “Freaks and Geeks,” uncensored.
“Skins” is so different from most shows today portraying high schoolers in its realism and dimensionality. It follows a large group of friends at a British high school, with each one getting their moment in the sun. There’s Tony (Nicholas Hoult), the cocky, obnoxious pretty boy. Tony’s best friend is Sid (Mike Bailey). Sid lacks the confidence of his best friend. He’s both the kind of guy everyone defines simply as “nice,” and the kind of guy who cares less about his own problems than everyone else does.
Sid is also deeply in love with Tony’s girlfriend, Michelle (April Pearson), who wonders whether or not there’s an emotional being under her boyfriend’s sleaziness. Sid might love Michelle, but he is constantly pursued by Cassie (Hannah Murray), an insecure but sweet girl with eating issues.
The rest of the important players include immature Chris (Joseph Dempsie), kind and musically gifted Jal (Larissa Wilson), and Anwar (Dev Patel), a Muslim grappling with his religious identity, so much so that it leads him to troubles with his gay friend Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).
The rest of the story typically just involves the teens navigating through a world of teenage angst. That could involve screwy relationships, embattled friendships, school work, and drugs. But then it also arches out to broader, everyday issues, like how to cope with getting hit by a car while trying to confess your love for someone.
“Skins” is one of those shows that wants to give every member of its large ensemble time to reveal their stories. Yes, it’s about redemption. Yet, not every character will immediately receive redemption in their assigned episodes. When one character is given an episode, it is their chance to realize their flaws and maybe think of how to change them later on. On “Skins,” redemption is never just given; it has to be earned.
Despite the fact that most of the characters get to redeem themselves, that doesn’t mean everyone is necessarily likable. Unlike most modern American shows, “Skins” doesn’t push to make any of its characters likable. In fact, some of them could be considered detestable. Yet, that’s what makes them human; not every person has the ability to be a totally great human being of any sort.
Unlike many high school stories, “Skins” is not just about its teens. The plot stretches into the lives of teachers and parents. When we see the lives of the parents, we are allowed to experience both the anger and angst that is passed down to the children, and through this we get an even more complex and detailed character study. Basically, everyone has a problem.
“Skins” is most engaging with its fascinating characters. It also manages to grab attention with its unique storytelling devices, the kinds that are atypical for this type of show. Many episodes will end right in the middle of an action, denying its audience of seeing the one action the episode has built up to. It’s a way of saying that the final action doesn’t matter; it’s the path the character took to get their that truly matters.
At other times, the show might even break the fourth wall. In the final moments of season one, rather than having a huggy-kissy moment, “Skins” opts for a very “Magnolia” moment. I won’t tell you how, because that would ruin the strange magic to it.
One extremely noticeable thing about “Skins” is how wildly uncensored it is, and sometimes how casually, yet seriously, it tackles some of its more controversial subjects. But hey, maybe swearing and partying are just casual hobbies for kids. Another thing that makes “Skins” great is that it never cuts corners or tries to be a clean version of reality. While it might heighten reality at times (like the episode where they go to Russia, or that whole ordeal with the submerged car), it never veers from its intended vision.
Whenever I review TV shows, I often look at them from the perspective of film. That is, the ones that have episodes that seem cinematic in quality. “Skins” has made me realize that that simply isn’t what makes a show great.
While most episodes of “Skins” can work as self-contained stories, this overall story could never work as a film. The character development that takes place could happen over several seasons, not 90 minutes or so. It’s amazing how we’re not only how deep the show goes, but how many characters it is able to so fully develop. “Skins” will impress not by gags and gimmicks, but simply by a deep and detailed fascination with how people behave.

Movie Review: Robin Hood

Leave a reply

Ridley Scott, where are you? The credits for “Robin Hood” say your name, but not a single one of your directorial trademarks are at all present. “Robin Hood” is not a movie, it’s a mess. It makes “The Room” look coherent.

The story of Robin Hood is folklore that’s been passed down for generations. It’s the famous “steal from the rich, give to the needy story.” Even Scott can’t seem to get that straight.
What can be deciphered from the muddled plot is that “Robin Hood” is the story of Robin Longstride, a.k.a. Robin Hood (Russell Crowe). Robin Hood is a skilled archer in the army of King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) during the political instability of 13th century England. After King Richard dies, Robin Hood travels to a small English village where he encounters corruption, a crippled taxation system, and a lonely yet strong widow (Cate Blanchett).
Besides encountering love, Robin Hood makes time to return a sword to his rightful owner, and battle the pesky French, all while managing to be one of the least engaging Medieval warriors I’ve ever seen.
Robin Hood is a mythical person, but he is one that has been emphasized over the years with so much detail that some might think he was real. You wouldn’t know it from this version, though. The free-spirited, anarchic outlaw that this film wants to portray is not visible once. In fact, the title character at times seems to disappear in the background. At times, he’s rendered totally insignificant. If a film wants to portray its hero as such an important figure of its made up world, than it should actually try to do just that.
I look back at “Robin Hood” and I realize, there wasn’t one redeeming feature to somehow lift this movie up. I always try to find that one redeeming feature of every poorly done film to prove that no matter what, nothing is perfect. Yet, I still can’t find it here. Maybe the one redeeming feature is the potential. “Robin Hood” holds a talented cast, and a talented director, yet nothing holds up.
The weakest point of “Robin Hood” is definitely its screenplay. No plot points seem to connect, no characters are related to each other in important ways, and not a single line of dialogue is the least bit memorable. The film ultimately amounts to two hours and twenty minutes of British people arguing about tax code in the dullest way imaginable.
“Robin Hood” is a summer blockbuster. I know that, and the film knows that. It looks like a summer blockbuster, but it just isn’t one. There is barely a battle sequence to be found here. Then, whatever action that is to be found here is impossible to even follow. Not to mention, every kill seems meaningless because Scott seems to prefer going into battle without much context. Why are the British battling the French? Why are the British now battling each other? Taxes, I guess.
There is a difference between a good summer blockbuster, and a great one. A good one contains the kind of action that is entertaining and satisfying. A great one contains action that is enthralling and sometimes mesmerizing. “Robin Hood” falls into neither category. This is bizarre, as this comes from the mind of a truly great action director.
There is not a single moment in which “Robin Hood” feels like a Ridley Scott film. It lacks the graceful action that won “Gladiator” Best Picture. It also lacks the amazingly realized universe of “Blade Runner” and the truly brave and three dimensional hero of “Alien.”
Instead, “Robin Hood” tries way too hard to capitalize off of the success of “Lord of the Rings.” Rather than coming off like “Lord of the Rings,” or even “Braveheart,” it feels more like “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” meets an intense LARPing match. Yet, the characters in a LARPing match are more well defined.
The one thing that continues to bother me about “Robin Hood” is the wasted potential. Besides the great director, it contains a sprawling cast (which contains the legendary Max von Sydow, who’s been around long enough to work with both Martin Scorsese and Ingmar Bergman). Even Crowe and Blanchett are reduced to merely mumbling. There is even a scene where Blanchett gives an unimaginably unrealistic response to the death of a family member. Crowe is forced to do the cliche “NOOO!” scream. Is that how two Academy Award winners are supposed to be treated?
I will try my best now, to give the film some sort of praise. It might be a little backhanded, but its something. The barrage of arrows at the end was pretty well done, even if it was a blatant ripoff of a stupid scene from “300.” Meanwhile, Kevin Durand (Keamy from “Lost”) does a fine job in his role as the oddly named Little John. He is the only one who seems to be enjoying his role, and the only one who seems to be in the right movie.
Besides that, the rest of the movie is basically the Knights Who Say Ni. I’d have given the film some sort of pass for effort but for a director who’s known to be an intense perfectionist, its shocking that so little effort has been put into this version of “Robin Hood.” Whether this is the fault of an intrusive studio, or a lazy director and writer is up to interpretation, but one thing about the legend of Robin Hood can be said: the version with the fox is better.

Movie Review: Trainspotting

Leave a reply

At this point, I should not be surprised to see a Danny Boyle film that starts and begins with action. Or, in the case of “Trainspotting,” begins in the middle of action. That’s the pace of the film, the mood of the film, and the setting of the film, all introduced in a few short seconds. If you can’t keep up, you were never meant to watch this film. If you can, be prepared for one of the most rewarding viewing experience you might ever have.

“Trainspotting” was the breakthrough film of the energized British mind of Danny Boyle, perhaps best known for “Slumdog Millionaire.” Here, the slums of Mumbai are replaced by the drug scene of Edinburgh, Scotland. Boyle focuses on a small group of heroin addicts, who live as a small, twisted, alternate family.
The circle of friends include the timid Spud (Ewen Bremner), honest Tommy (Kevin McKidd), almost pensive Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), borderline psychotic Begbie (Robert Carlyle), and Mark Renton (Ewan McGregor). Renton is the film’s central character. The film mainly follows his quest from junkie to ordinary man. His conflict is to make it to sobriety without being pulled back into the past.
“Trainspotting” proves that Boyle brings a level of energy and thrill to cinema that few directors nowadays can match. He can achieve this high level of energy simply by tilting a camera, or adding a little light to a room. It might just be a way to shine a little bit of hope into a hopeless world. However, this doesn’t mean Boyle is attempting to beautify horror. He never justifies his characters’ actions. The film is meant to portray the world inside the mind of a heroin addict, and maybe one person might just beauty in their own mind where others see trash.
Boyle will always remain in my mind a brilliant visual director. He just truly knows what a good image would look like. And while some visual directors opt forr long stretches of silence, Boyle can let soliloquies run long over stunning images with no sense of distraction. Both of these things make one of those combos that just inexplicably work so well together. Boyle is the rare director who can be in-your-face without being annoyingly intrusive.
While Boyle is overwhelmingly a visual director, he still can stay in touch with emotion. Through many odd, trippy sequences, Boyle explicitly shows the inner workings of a drug experience. Then, he shows how these experiences have the power to dehumanize and tear people apart.
Of all the characters in the large ensemble of “Trainspotting,” Renton is without a doubt the most important, and the most deep. He is the one character the audience can cling onto emotionally because he is the only one seems to have the ability to change. Renton is extremely dark; he rejects every aspect of materialism along with his own heritage. He doesn’t seem to do drugs out of addiction but rather out of the pure thrill of life. He definitely adheres to the quote that opens up “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas”: “He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”
The inner pains of Renton are brought out by the outstanding performance of McGregor. He disappears into his role and never steps out of it. He shows an untrustworthy inner demon. Yet, his capacity to change is utterly believable.
Some might compare “Trainspotting” to a modern film about the effects of drugs such as “Requiem for a Dream.” However, I will instead compare it to one of cinema’s greatest masterworks: “A Clockwork Orange.” I am not saying “Trainspotting” is as good as “A Clockwork Orange,” but I can feel that Boyle was trying to emulate Kubrick’s classic and he does so well. The large white walls that engulf characters, the aloof parents, and the endless graffiti feels totally reminiscent of the world of Alex DeLarge.
Like “A Clockwork Orange,” “Trainspotting” is about the possibility or impossibility of change in a world that’s in a constant state of moral decay. This is a film that tells the typical anti-drug fable with a hip new eye. Sometimes that’s just what the greatest movies are, they ones that tell the stories we’ve heard millions of times before and makes them brand new. Oh, and in the case of “Trainspotting,” simply brilliant.

Movie Review: Alice in Wonderland

Leave a reply

This is not the Alice you were expecting. Or so we are reminded throughout. This is a new Alice, in a new Wonderland, for better, or for worse.

Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” gives you exactly what you’d expect in a Tim Burton film: weirdness, darkness, and madness. Although it misses out on some of the depth of his earlier work, “Alice” shows that this man still understands the concept of the fairytale.
Rather than making this “Alice” exactly like the original, Burton decided to give it a little twist. Thirteen years after first discovering Wonderland, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is curious teen, totally loathing her dull Victorian lifestyle. As she is proposed to, she follows that same white rabbit with the stop watch and falls down that same rabbit hole. She’s back where she’s been before but this time, she can’t remember a thing.
While in Wonderland, she meets the very mad Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp), who convinces her to team up with the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) and defeat the evil, reigning Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) by slaying the Jabberwocky.
To this minute, I still feel split in my thoughts on this film. On the one hand, it was thoroughly entertaining. On the other hand, it’s filled with flaws.
My biggest problem with “Alice” was that it felt as if Burton was rushing through the story. Even though Alice has existed for almost 150 years, this is obviously a different Alice than we’ve seen before. It’s apparent that she’s a bored free spirit living in the wrong universe. However, barely any background is given as to how she became this way. I thought one of the stronger aspects of “Where the Wild Things Are” (a film I use as a basis of comparison because they are actually very similar) was that it built up all of Max’s anger and alienation into this alternate world. He earned his rite of passage into the Land of the Wild Things. Alice should’ve waited a bit longer.
“Alice in Wonderland” is perhaps the most ambitious experiment in converting a film into 3D. However, this story should’ve been kept in the second dimension. None of the visuals seem to pop out at you in an “Avatar” way. Seriously, that 3D cat food commercial that ran before the movie started used the technology better. A film that isn’t shot in 3D isn’t shot in 3D for a reason. Burton was probably trying to keep his vision two dimensional on purpose.
Despite the failed 3D, the set design and cinematography are nothing short of stunning. Burton creates a world that’s been seen so many times before in a surprisingly unique way. He tries to turn Wonderland into his own land. Meanwhile, the lush yet dark photography perfectly matches the film’s tone.
Rather than going with a known lead to play Alice, Burton went for newcomer Wasikowska. She’s a welcome breath of fresh air, and certainly a promising future star. She takes a 19th century character and fills her with relatable, 21st century teenage angst. It’s too bad she wasn’t given a better script, though. Same goes for Depp. Based on interviews, it’s obvious how much amazing work Depp did to portray the Mad Hatter. However, he’s given such little time to do his thing. I think with a little less constraint, Depp could’ve done the same thing with the Mad Hatter that he did with Jack Sparrow in “Pirates of the Caribbean” and Hunter Thompson in “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.”
I think what this is all leading up to is an unfortunate amount of superficiality. That’s disappointing for a director who’s brought humanity to both a man with scissors for hands (“Edward Scissorhands”) and the guy who directed “Plan 9 from Outer Space” (“Ed Wood”). Burton has always put much effort into the world he creates, but he never abandons the humans that inhabit it. And even here, Burton doesn’t seem to relish the wonders that Wonderland provide. You stare, but don’t gaze, at it.
I hope I’m not sounding too negative because overall, “Alice in Wonderland” is a good film, but just not the great one that it could’ve been. “Alice in Wonderland” might give us a new story, and a new Alice, but something about it just doesn’t seem inspired enough.

Movie Review: Fish Tank

Leave a reply

Mia is always running. You would to if you lived a life like her’s. Her life is hard. That might sound vague, but her plight is emphasized in almost unbearably vivid detail in “Fish Tank.”

“Fish Tank” is the next chapter in what I consider a British New Wave. Along with last year’s “In the Loop,” “An Education,” and “Moon” as well as 2008′s “In Bruges,” “Fish Tank” is part of a series of incredibly well crafted (and entertaining) British films.
Of all these films, “Fish Tank” might just be the darkest. It is a gritty look at lower class life. With its shaky camera, “Fish Tank” at times feels like a documentary. The film follows the life of Mia (Katie Jarvis). Mia is a 15-year-old living on the outskirts of London with a tendency to get in trouble. On the outside, she’s tough and reckless. On the inside, she’s vulnerable and dreams of being a dancer.
Any hope Mia might have is crushed by her physically abusive and unloving mother. Her mother’s new boyfriend, Connor (Michael Fassbender), is kind and caring. Mia soon falls in love with him, and begins a doomed affair with him.
“Fish Tank” introduces its audience to a world it is likely not at all familiar with it. By the end, you’ll feel like you lived it. As mentioned, the constantly shaking camera makes the film feel like a documentary. When Mia sits, the camera sits. When Mia runs, it runs with her, shaking all the way, as if someone is directly following her every step.
The film’s cinematography is just one thing to show that this film is alive. Not to mention, the constantly changing colors brilliantly match each shot and never get in the way of the story (this was a big problem for me in “A Single Man”). Then there is the music. The rap songs help make this film the most vibrant and energetic social drama I’ve seen since “Do the Right Thing.”
It is amazing to say that I’m saying that a film like “Fish Tank,” full of emotionally devastating abuse, could also be classified as energetic. It is a testament to the power of Mia, that she can still bring life and energy into such horrible circumstances.
Speaking of Mia, she’s an interesting character to talk about. She reminds me in a way of a young, more destitute Madame Bovary for the 21st century. She seems to base her life in the idea of fantasy so much that she blends fantasy and reality. This can be seen in her affair with Connor. She might think she’s finding true love, but actually, in a twisted way, she’s really searching for a father figure in her life. Or maybe she just needs an intelligent and caring male to counteract the poor female role model in her life.
Newcomer Katie Jarvis is electrifying in her debut performance. She has no problem going down to the hardboiled truth of Mia’s character. I was also thoroughly impressed by Michael Fassbender. Fassbender wowed me in his brief performance in “Inglourious Basterds” and in “Fish Tank” he brings that same tough yet relaxed geniality to make Connor a character who is hard to hate. Fassbender is blossoming into something of a great actor, and I’m expecting much from him in the years to come.
“Fish Tank” is a great movie because it takes a good story and uses a distinct directorial style to make it great. Director Andrea Arnold has a love of the surrounding world. She’ll often focus on different objects around a room to directly reveal character.
Arnold also focuses heavily on the surroundings, like a giant wind turbine that lies right outside her apartment. It creates a direct contrast between two very different worlds within such close distance. Then there is the film’s beautiful last image. I won’t give it away, but I will say is that it nearly encapsulates the entire film in just one shot. Even in a film that seems to deny the idea that people can live out their wildest fantasies, this one shot shows that in a hard world love still exists if you actually try and find it. The title itself, meanwhile, shows how everyone is trapped into their own personal fish tank of an existence. Only the strongest can swim away.
Even though it’s only February, “Fish Tank” is the first great film to be released in 2010, and one that will most definitely be a top 10 contender come December.

Movie Review: A Single Man

Leave a reply

Ignore the posters that make this film out to be a romance between Colin Firth and Julianne Moore. Ignore the buzz that makes this film seem like nothing more than a “gay movie.” “A Single Man” is much more than a romance of any kind. “A Single Man” is a film with amazing depth, but unfortunately, falls just short of perfection.

“A Single Man” takes place in Los Angeles in the early 1960s. It centers on the complicated life in and out of the head of British college professor George (Firth). The film begins at a climatic moment one would expect to see in the middle, rather than beginning, of a story. George’s lover, Jim (Matthew Goode), dies in a car crash.
From there, the film becomes one of those films where the story is less a plot and more of an idea. George copes with the pain of losing his lover. He seeks solace in liquor, an old flame (Moore), and a curious young student (Nicholas Hoult).
Much praise has been heaped upon Firth. This is no surprise; he is able to express so much in so little. George is a character who keeps much of his true self hidden, and Firth always gives George a little less than a smile and a little less than a frown. We know he is not emotionless, and he eventually proves not to be.
Perhaps one of the most moving scenes of the year was made possible by Firth’s incredibly real acting. After getting the call that Jim was killed, George breaks down and cries. However, it is not a loud, over-the-top reaction. Rather, he remains silent. His silence increases the intensity of his reaction more than any scream could.
The film also contains an excellent, yet too brief, performance by Julianne Moore. She revives her British accent from “The Big Lebowski” and brings something of an uplifting spirit to an otherwise saddening story.
It may sound strange, but one of the strongest features of “A Single Man” is also its only real weakness: the directing. The film was directed by Tom Ford, a fashion designer. For a directorial debut, it’s somewhat impressive, and very promising.
Ford has already begun to establish a style. He directs the film like a fashion designer, paying very close attention to color and small details. He really loves color. Ford truly does embrace the aspect of style, and he tries to use it to enhance the substance. There are times when this works. For example, throughout the film, George is constantly shot with washed out colors. Meanwhile, every time Kenny (the young student) enters the frame, George’s world lights up with warm, lively colors.
Details like this work because they are subtle. However, other overly artistic details in the film don’t work at all. While the very strange way George looks at his neighbors serves to show how conflicted he is between lifestyles, the continuous freeze frames also take away some of the seriousness of the story. At other moments, George will be in the middle of experiencing an emotional breakthrough and Ford’s over-the-top direction will give away exactly what we’re supposed to get on our own from the complexity of Firth’s performance.
The major problem of this film is that the director, the film’s leader, is too present. While Ford is talented, he is also dealing with an extremely talented cast of actors. Without his constant intervention, their talents could have wowed us even further. While all of the best directors leave their personal stamp on every film they make, everyone else involved should be allowed to leave their mark as well.
Despite some small hiccups, Ford manages to get both the story and themes across effectively. In fact, George manages to come off as fully developed despite being someone who can barely express his true feelings. It seems that the whole point of the film is to do the best any film can to get inside someone’s head from an outsider perspective. We see a fully realized world of confusion and uncertainty.
“A Single Man” is the first movie in recent years with a gay main character not to make a huge deal of the character’s sexuality. The word “gay” is never used once in the film. Given the time period, most men were beyond closeted, and homosexuality seemed basically impossible. The relationship between George and Jim is used to convey the sense of freedom and openness that is trapped inside of him. The film becomes one about finding identity and reaching clarity.
The greatest thing Tom Ford does with “A Single Man” is that he makes it a love story that’s neither a gay love story nor a straight love story but rather just a love story about understanding love and dealing with loss.

Movie Review: An Education

1 Reply

The beginning of “An Education” might throw you off a bit. For a premise that sounds so trite, the music is so upbeat and unexpected. It’s basically an indicator for what’s to come: a surprising, refreshing, and extremely entertaining British drama.

“An Education” brings us back to a time where many things were accepted and others rejected that we couldn’t even imagine today. Still, something about this time seems alarmingly relevant. The year is 1961, and the location is London. Jenny (Carey Mulligan) is a 16-year-old with a love for French music and film. Her real ambitions seem to be to absorb all things cultural. However, she is ruled more by the ambitions of her strict father (Alfred Molina). Therefore, she attends an all girls private school with a goal of getting into Oxford.
Everything in Jenny’s life seems mechanical. Even the cello, which she loves so much, is meant simply as a means of getting her into college. This all changes one day when she meets David (Peter Sarsgaard). David is a Jewish businessman about twice Jenny’s age. He breaks her away from her imprisoned life and introduces her to a world of jazz, gambling, and drinking, amongst other things. Once she sees this new life, she never wants to go back.
Much talk about the film has gone into Carey Mulligan’s performance. All of this talk comes for good reason. I cannot see any other actress stepping into the role of Jenny and doing as fine a job as Mulligan does. She conveys Jenny’s emotion and confusion with absolute perfection, letting both her emotions and her ambivalence guide the story. Mulligan also constantly reminded me of Audrey Hepburn in “Breakfast at Tiffany’s.” It’s not just for her looks, but for the way she conveys her many complex feelings, and ultimately finds her purpose in life.
Mulligan might be front and center, but she’s not the only great actor on display. Molina is amazing when you think how drawn out his character could’ve been. Instead, he breathes life into his performance and even bring a good deal of humor into his character’s awkwardness. And in his sternest moments, he’s always convincing.
Sarsgaard performance is the most underrated in the film. He has a fascinating ability to be able to act in two different emotions at once, especially with his body language. His smile will suggest a calm amiability, while his cocked eyebrows can suggest a whole different man. This is a rare talent few actors possess, and for this, as well as his convincing British accent, Sarsgaard should be praised more often.
“An Education” does not solely rely on performances for greatness. To tell you the truth, the only thing that got me to see this movie was the Oscar buzz surrounding it. The story sounded like something I’ve seen many times before. However, “An Education manages to take this formula and bring a whole new dimension to it.
For starters, none of the characters are turned into caricatures. None of the adults seem to be putting Jenny through her miserable education simply to torture her. There is always a reason behind each motive. In the end, Jenny’s strict father ends up being as likable as she is.
The whole story is an ode to rebelliousness and non-conformity. This of course isn’t the first film to celebrate these things. What is so great about the story is that it doesn’t seem to be celebrating the wrong kind of rebelliousness. It wants Jenny to find freedom, and find it in the right way. Just as it makes the point that one can’t get an education until they realize why they’re being educated, one can’t truly go their own way until they understand why they’re going in the direction they’re headed.
Some film critics judge how much they like a movie by their emotional connection to it. I don’t do that too often but with “An Education,” I will take a big exception. Jenny’s coming-of-age story reminded me of events I’ve faced recently in my own life, and some words she hears sound a little like things I’ve been told as well. It’s not just what Jenny is told, but her reactions to it that I can relate to so much.
I think what made “An Education” such a unique viewing experience for me is its tone. It could’ve been a film that was darky, moody, and constantly angry. Instead, it remains optimistic throughout. Even when Jenny reaches her lowest point, there is always the reaffirming touch of life in every shot. It’s nice for once to see a film about the machine that is life which doesn’t approach it’s subject in such a pessimistic manner. “An Education” is a film that proves that it doesn’t just matter what story you’re telling, but how you tell it.

Movie Review: In the Loop

Leave a reply

Some things are too ridiculous to be true. Other things, when put into the right context, are too ridiculous to not be true. This is the very case for “In the Loop.” Its a very relevant political satire about ridiculous characters and situations during a very ridiculous period in history.

“In the Loop” might be so brilliant because of its stunning realism, or just because of how funny it is. The film is shot in a mockumentary style and spans a wide range of characters across an entire ocean. It takes place in the days leading up to a major war with a Middle Eastern country (no name is mentioned, but the film is obviously alluding to Iraq).
The film follows the lives of incompetent bureaucrats as the US and Britain prepare for war. The British side is headed by the Prime Minister’s enforcer Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi), a man who curses more than he thinks. The war plans are constantly compromised by Minister for International Development Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) and his new assistant Toby (Chris Addison).
On the American front, Liza Weld (Anna Chlumsky) writes an anti-war report. As the two countries try and thwart the invasion, the more they work together, the less they get done.
“In the Loop” works so well for so many reasons. For one, it does not encompass one single style of humor, but rather a very broad comedic range. The film seems to have a combination of humor from both sides of the pond, which is a perfect fit. At times, it embraces British deadpan and visual humor. At other times, it uses the American humor of awkwardness and slapstick.
The great thing is that it doesn’t restrict British humor to the British characters and American humor to the American characters. One of the best examples in the film is when Toby stumbles into a meeting late, and he uncomfortably tries to find a good excuse. Of course, he has no clue what he’s talking about.
“In the Loop” is also blessed by hilarious dialogue from writer Jesse Armstrong. At times, some of the lines seem too natural to be scripted; I would not be surprised if improv took place in this film. The lines contain many pop culture references, and a fair amount of cursing. However, the cursing is not just thrown in for the sake of being there. It seems to have a purpose. At times, it can reveal frustration. Other times, it shows abundant emotional immaturity. Mainly though, it just manages to make you laugh. Rarely has the f-word been used this creatively.
“In the Loop” is boosted by an incredible ensemble. No one actor dominates. Rather, each is given a moment to shine. James Gandolfini shines as a US general. He manages to be hilarious by being intimidating at some times, and at other times delivering lines about murdering kittens and puppies without sounding angry.
The strength of the cast lies not just in the strength of each actor, but in the way they all communicate with each other. While great chemistry between actors is usually defined by how convincing it is that they like each other, the great chemistry in “In the Loop” is defined by how well the characters fight with each other. The fact that this was passed on by SAG for the Best Ensemble Award is something of a crime.
“In the Loop” works not just as comedy, but as spot-on political commentary. Armando Iannucci has created a satire worthy of being mentioned alongside “Dr. Strangelove,” the greatest political satire of all time. Like “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” shows miscommunication as the most powerful starter of war. However, unlike “Strangelove,” “In the Loop” is based more off something that actually happened rather than something that could’ve happened. Both are inevitably about trying to stop a crisis that’s already started.
All joking aside, “In the Loop” does have a very serious message to tell. Of course, it does this through humor. It portrays a world in which everything we’re told is essentially a lie, and the real, dirty business goes on way behind closed doors. Also, by having pretty much every person working for the US and British government be way too young, Iannucci is saying that Iraq War might as well have been planned by children. This balance of humor and serious message is something we don’t see enough in modern American comedies.
I really hope in the next two weeks, Oscar voters take this film into some serious consideration. Mainly, a surprise nomination for Capaldi and a Screenplay nomination for the bleeding gums scene alone would be just fine.
In the end, there is really one reason you should go and see “In the Loop”: it’s the most intelligent comedy you’ll see involving diarrhea jokes.