Category Archives: Julianne Moore

Movie Review: Carrie (2013)

Leave a reply

Poor Carrie White. 37 years later, and she still can’t catch a break. The latest update of “Carrie” is not a total facelift, but it does take the White family and places them in the present day. If you’ve already seen the original, you might be interested to see how much more the White family feels out of place in 2013 than 1976.

Even for newbies, I believe the story of “Carrie” is well known enough at this point that I shouldn’t use too much time to lay it all out. Carrie (Chloe Moretz) is still a misfit, and her mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is still a religious fanatic. Carrie still gets bullied, gets covered in pig guts, and then gets sweet, sweet revenge.


Unlike the original though, director Kimberly Peirce decided to focus much more on the bullying aspect. This is important, as the Internet has made bullying both much more prevalent and scarier than it ever was in the past. On the one hand, Peirce handles this topic with restraint, rightfully not cluttering the screen with texts and Tweets. This is what sets “Carrie” apart from most modern teen films, even if it is sometimes feels like a gorier version of a CW show. On the other hand, Peirce doesn’t explore the bullying idea enough, and it often feels more like an afterthought than an insight. Also, even somebody as maniacal and dumb as Chris (Portia Doubleday) wouldn’t post a video that incriminating on YouTube for anyone and everyone to see.

I’ve begun to shake off my completely negative attitude towards remakes. The best thing about them is that they can shed light onto the filmmaking of both the past and present. The “Carrie” of 1976 creates tension with a slow buildup. It is more a work of the Hitchcockian school of terror (indeed Brian De Palma was a big fan of paying homage to Hitchcock). The “Carrie” of 2013 throws the ideas of patience and subtlety out the door. The action scenes in the new “Carrie” are well choreographed and plausible, but they are never surprising and they never keep you guessing. At one point after a big explosion I said to myself, “oh they had to do that just in case we weren’t sure that character was already dead. Now they’re just more dead.” The more “Carrie” shows, the less scary it becomes.

While a movie about telekinesis obviously isn’t going to offer the most realistic portrait of high school, there could have at least been a little more effort. I would have liked to see Carrie in the same high school I saw in “The Spectacular Now,” where the teens at least speak the way teens actually do. “Carrie” feels less like a horror movie set in high school, and more like a superhero movie. In fact, at several points I felt reminded of “The Amazing Spider-Man.” While I really enjoyed that movie, Carrie shouldn’t be a superhero movie. It is more interesting, and more tragic, to watch her struggle with her powers. Carrie is a tragic anti-hero, not Wonder Woman.

There’s also a lot of problems with the dialogue, which rarely replicates the way teenagers actually talk. However, the actors make the best of the script they are given. Chloe Moretz, the most mature actress her age in Hollywood, embodies all of Carrie’s silent rage. Meanwhile, Julianne Moore is sometimes unrecognizable in her performance as Carrie’s mother. They both portray madness in two different ways: one implicitly, and one explicitly.

As director, Peirce definitely respects the source material, and does her best to remain faithful while inserting her original voice. It just doesn’t seem right to turn “Carrie” into such an on-the-nose anti-bullying film, when the original story did that so well without having to state the message. The latest version of “Carrie” is a fine introduction to the story, but its existence still doesn’t seem merited enough for me. Throughout its entire run, it had my attention. However, it never had my full curiosity.

SPOILER SECTION- Read on if you’ve seen “Carrie”

  • I think it was the new ending that bothered me most about “Carrie.” It is not even that Sue (Gabriella Wilde) going to court is less haunting than her having a breakdown in her mother’s arms. It is that they took the memorable final image of Carrie’s hand popping out of the ground and replaced it with what felt like the beginning of a music video. I am all for ambiguity, but I don’t even think this ending knew how it wanted to make the audience feel. 
  • This version decides to spare Ms. Desjardin. Her death in the original showed the consequences of Carrie’s revenge, and how little control she had over her own body. Now, her revenge is much more calculated. 
  • I think Richard Kelly would have been a great choice as director for this remake. He hasn’t made a great film since “Donnie Darko.” He really could use a comeback. 
  • Of course Mrs. White is crazy enough to give birth to Carrie all by herself.
  • Their last name is White. White…Walter White? Lot’s of evil…are they related?! Guys, I miss “Breaking Bad.” 

Movie Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love

1 Reply

Marketers and advertisers are supposed to fool us into believing that some product, usually an inferior one, is gold. Sometimes though, they fail to make a superior product look good. Point in case comes with “Crazy, Stupid, Love” a movie that perhaps no one knew how to sell, because it doesn’t at all try to be a part of the genre that everyone wants it to be in. But hey, sometimes lying is the only way to make a buck at the box office nowadays.

In a culture of showing everything and giving it all away, “Crazy, Stupid, Love” surprisingly surprised me, and it pulled off a surprising twist that could make even M. Night Shyamalan blush (is that joke still relevant?). “Crazy, Stupid, Love” has something most comedies could use these days: fully-formed characters. The movie starts off as with Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) and wife Emily (Julianne Moore) out at a restaurant. He asks what they could share for dessert, and the first thing she blurts out is ‘divorce.’

Before any of this is even said, it is already clear what is wrong with this marriage. Cal wears a distinctly beat up pair of white New Balance shoes, and typical rectangular glasses made simply to help him read, and not at all to distinguish him from any other man his age. He has been so lost in his marriage that he just lives to function. So little fight is left in him that when Emily wants to talk about things on the ride home, he simply opens the car door and jumps out in the middle of the road. What he barely got a chance to hear about was that Emily cheated on him with her boss (Kevin Bacon, in a subtletly sleazy role).

Following the divorce, Cal lives a sad sack life, and frequents a hip bar that seems too trendy for someone who doesn’t even know what a trend is. Meet Jacob (Ryan Gosling) who is basically a walking male fashion trend. Jacob is smooth in every sense, and can even casually drop some Yiddish into conversation. Jacob leaves the bar every night with a new woman until one day when he decides to drop everything and take Cal under his wing.

Jacob’s idea of changing one’s life around is a complete change in wardrobe. After disposing his New Balances and throwing on a new suit, Cal becomes Jacob’s clone. This leads him to picking up a series of women, one of them being a teacher (Marisa Tomei) who is just as self-loathing as he is. All the while, Cal’s family makes some other stupid mistakes, and his son Robbie (Jonah Bobo) tries to figure out what love is amongst the madness of divorce.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” works not because it is the kind of romantic movie in which we are forced to root for a bunch of bad people who one day decide to do something good, but rather it is about a bunch of genuinely good people who sometimes act against their better judgement. Cal and Emily’s divorce made me think of “Kramer vs. Kramer” in its honesty and its ability to not pass down judgement onto its characters. Just as it occurs in reality, every action and every reaction has a purpose in the eyes of each person who carries it out. It has a bit of the he-said she-said mentality, but the movie is really about how their broken love affects a wide range of people, and not just the two of them.

I have been a fan of Steve Carell, since his days as a correspondent of “The Daily Show.” He can make anyone fall in love with even the goofiest characters (Michael Scott, Andy from “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”), but he’s never displayed the kind of range he shows in “Crazy, Stupid, Love.” In past roles was he had to make an unsympathetic character sympathetic and here, he has to do the exact opposite. He excels at this challenge and shows some dramatic chops he’s been hiding. Gosling meanwhile, has more dialogue than he had in both “Drive” and “The Ides of March” combined, yet he displays that same ability to play someone who is almost like a blank slate with one defining quality (driving, political knowledge, and here, clothes). He is described at one point as looking “photoshopped” and indeed, he makes Jacob look photoshopped. His transition into relationship man is surprisingly believable, with an extra thanks to Emma Stone, who’s importance to the story has a drastic change towards the movie’s end.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” is the kind of funny that’s quiet and smooth, with each joke not attempting to be a gag but rather just a part of what anyone in the cast would say or do. The surprisingly refreshing script from Dan Fogelman (“Fred Claus”) gives every single character in the ensemble a purpose. Here is a movie that throws away the idea of throwaway characters and subplots. The movie’s only real flaw is a graduation scene final speech that feels a little too calculated, and while the happy ending feels earned, it ties things together too simply, especially with the cynical tone the movie carried throughout. Then again, for everything the characters went through and how they eventually prove themselves to the audience, maybe they deserved this conclusion.

“Crazy, Stupid, Love” made a mockery of the people who released it, proving that a poorly chosen title and some ads that seem to give away everything don’t necessarily rightfully represent the movie. Watching it made me think of a slightly lighter version of “The Descendents.” Like that other movie, there was a rare, genuine feeling behind the humor of “Crazy, Stupid, Love” that didn’t make me feel stupid for enjoying it, and certainly doesn’t make me feel crazy for endorsing it.

Movie Review: The Kids Are All Right

2 Replies

Face it, all romantic films turn out the same. In that light, it doesn’t matter what happens in the end, but rather how you get to that end point. That could include the events that occur throughout the film, or the larger context in which those events happen. In a world where romance seems dead, “The Kids Are All Right” is there to kick that notion right in the butt.

As much as people like to make fun of where the Indie genre has gone, give it credit for continuing to make common ideas seem fresh. “The Kids Are All Right” is a mixture of suburban boredom with teen angst and sexual confusion. The centerpiece couple is lesbians Nic (Annette Benning) and Jules (Julianne Moore). Nic takes on the uptight parent role, while Jules is more open-minded. However, they are both equally motherly.

Jules and Nic have two children: the brainy and sexually repressed Joni (Mia Wasikowska) and the just plain confused Laser (Josh Hutcherson). After discovering their origins, the two become curious about who their real father is. They find out he is a semi-hippie named Paul (Mark Ruffalo). Despite being a college dropout, Paul now runs a successful organic farming business and restaurant. The kids meet Paul, and they get along quite well. Something about Paul might seem strange, but Ruffalo’s constantly calm and always reassuring voice quells all fears.

The rest of “The Kids Are All Right” is one of those films whose story doesn’t stem off of a major event but rather a person. Every action that happens in the rest of the film happens as a direct result of the family’s contact with Paul.

“The Kids Are All Right” goes at two contradicting paces. First off, it goes slow. It takes its time and enjoys itself while doing so. At the same time, it feels so energetic and lively. Even if you can feel the running time, you’ll never feel bored. The film definitely chews up the beautiful Southern California scenery.

The music that director Lisa Cholodenko chose also fits in perfectly. The film’s opening track is Vampire Weekend’s “Cousins.” I am usually irked when films use recent, popular music. It can feel like they’re just capitalizing off of something popular rather than actually choosing the right songs. However, “Cousins” is well chosen. It projects both a strangely happy mood as well as a sense of the twisted family troubles on the horizon.

Once again, “The Kids Are All Right” doesn’t contain the lightning-fast storytelling common place in most films made today. Even though I could definitely feel every moment, I would’ve been fine with sitting in the theater for another two hours with these characters. That’s what good storytelling does: it puts you into a convincing universe and lets you out whenever it damn well feels like letting you out. “The Kids Are All Right” ended where it wanted to end because it earned the right to.

This film contains an ensemble worthy of a SAG Award. Benning shows so many flared up, mixed emotions both through her words and even more powerfully, body expressions. Moore is a powerhouse of warmth and motherly humor. Then there’s also Wasikowska. I thought she showed potential in “Alice in Wonderland,” but she just needed a project that was actually, well, good. After “The Kids Are All Right,” she has proven herself ready to take on even more challenging roles.

Along with great acting, “The Kids Are All Right” certainly has one of the best screenplays this year. It’s so insightful and downright hilarious. It embraces awkwardness at all the right moments.

But beyond its witty and thoughtful dialogue there lies something within the film that is almost groundbreaking. For one of the first times, a gay couple was portrayed just like any other couple would be portrayed. The film so truthfully shows what it would feel like to have two moms. That opening dinner scene felt so unbelievably real in the way the characters interact with each other. The “L word” isn’t in site at any point. In an ever troublesome world, “The Kids Are All Right” is a sign of the times that actually makes me feel good about the time I’m growing up in.

Even though you know where the makers of “The Kids Are All Right” lean, this film never at one point tries to make a political statement. It is simply trying to tell a good story, which it does quite well. In its exploration of the meaning of family and the troubles of sex, it evokes the best social commentaries of the 1970s as well as such other great films as “Juno” and “American Beauty.” “The Kids Are All Right” proves that maybe the kids will turn out all right. Hopefully, more movies will follow in its footsteps and turn out all right, too.

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.