I just have to say I'm not particularly fond of Terry Gilliam's movies. I often find them to be too overwhelming stylistically in a way that detracts from the story and characters. This movie was a pleasant surprise as I might even go as far as to say I loved it. It still has that definite Gilliam style of camera work, as well as the gritty-yet-friendly atmosphere and the oddball characters that you'd cross the street if you saw them coming in the real world but in a Gilliam film they're somewhat loveable. What I think distinguishes this from my past experiences with Gilliam is that this film is such a cohesive story that plays out beautifully. The cast is honestly just stellar, couldn't have been better. Heath Ledger died during the filming of this movie, so he was replaced by Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell, and it worked. It worked phenomenally. They all did such a good job it was at times hard to distinguish between the actors. The general idea is a travelling circus sideshow with the likes of Christopher Plummer, Verne Troyer and Lily Cole, stumbles upon Heath hanging under a bridge. They rescue him, and he says he can't remember who he is. As it goes on we get insight not only into the twists and turns of Ledger's character but also the family turmoil between Plummer and Cole. This is all the while Tom Waits (who plays the devil) is on their tails. The Imaginarium is the key attraction to their act; a mirror that you walk into and experience a surreal dream world. Each time LEdger goes into this world, he becomes a different actor. The crazy thing is the first time it happens, when he switches over to being Johnny Depp, I didn't even know until he took off a mask that barely covered half his face. These other actors have taken on the role so well that they now only look remarkably like Ledger but they talk and move like him too. Afterwards I almost felt that Colin Farrell didn't work as well though, since both the actor and the character seemed like more of a douchebag than in the rest of the movie, but it fit. Throughly enjoyable.
9/10
Film#67 - The Lovely Bones, 2009, dir. Peter Jackson
This one has a bit of a heavyweight cast, with the likes of Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Rachel Weisz and Susan Sarandon, and it's a real shame the movie had to be so bad in the end. Simply watching the trailer gives you the entire synopsis, as well as the first 5 minutes of the movie. The entire thing is narrated by Suzie Salmon, a 14 year old girl who is killed by her neighbour. I'm not ruining any surprise because she straight out says it to begin the story. We all know who did it, and you can guess he isn't caught by the police. I get the idea that the story is not about the events but rather how they are dealt with by the family. It didn't work. Tucci is decent in it, but I can't help thinking his sinister demeanor is really just because of the unnatural green contacts he's wearing. The story is full of holes, and almost as if in some way to cover them up, little tidbits are thrown in that just end up feeling cheesy. I also had a bit of a problem with how they depicted purgatory, at least what I take to be purgatory. It was honestly a dream come true for this girl, just the absolute happiest place to be. This was the strange part of the film: in the middle of this story of a young girl being murdered (and possibly raped) by a psychotic neighbour, there are these strange happy montages thrown in that seem so out of place and throw off the entire mood the film has been setting. Years down the road from her murder, her mother (Weisz) leaves the family to have some time to herself. The grandmother (Sarandon) comes to hold them together. How does she do that? Oh by having a fun montage of house cleaning and cooking and wacky antics with the kids all the while upbeat 70's music plays. The only thing I actually enjoyed about this movie was the way it played with colour; many aspects of the film play with the familiar navy jacket and orangey pants, giving this wonderful contrasting colour palette. Not only this but certain scenes, such as the walk through the cornfield, have this beautiful shadowy gradient over the section with Stanley Tucci, while in the far distance we can see autumn shades of orange and yellow. However, colour is by no means a redeeming quality, and this film desperately needed some aspect to help it out.
6/10
Film#68 - Nine, 2009, dir. Rob Marshall
I have to say I'm not always sure about how to rate a musical. I've seen many more than I'd like to admit and can't say many musicals have done anything for me. This is where I think this film stood out for me. As opposed to what I may call a typical musical where a scene is set and out of no where music starts and everyone joins in on the song and and dance. It never made sense why those things ever happened. Did the characters then talk about it as if they were singing, or was that just regular for them?
"Oh but didn't you tell me meet you at 5?"
"No I never said that"
"Sure you did, remember, during that spontaneous song with all the kids at school. You remember, I mean we kind of did an organized dance routine together at lunch."
Anyways, this film doesn't do that. Instead, all the music sequences are more or less inside Daniel Day-Lewis' head, as he plays Guido Contini, who is based off of Federico Fellini. The main 'real life' sequence will continue, cut between scenes of Lewis either singing or watching someone perform for him on his unfinished movie set. The general idea is he is looking for his next big movie idea to come to him, particularly from the various women in his life. The problem is he has already signed on to make the movie, and production is well on its way, there just isn't any story or screenplay. So as he goes through his life he finds inspiration, which transform into these musical bits in his head. The way it was done was rather good, and the acting in this film is for the most part phenomenal. Of course I'm a huge Daniel Day-Lewis fan and that man can do no wrong in my eyes, but everyone else was also quite good (minus Nicole Kidman, she was only okay). My problem came from the type of music. There are musicals with catchy songs, 'real' songs, things that can play outside of the context of the film. This one was not really like that. The songs are descriptive of the characters actions, without real choruses or any real hook to them. My next problem was that some sequences seemed unexplained and underdeveloped. I'm aware that this is based off of a play (which is based off of the making of a movie), and that in the production of this film many songs from the play were dropped. I have to believe that all that was absent from this film would have helped bring the story along, and to keep it from being a collection of scenes and instead be more of a solid narrative. We get the just of Day-Lewis' life and struggles, and he gives us a certain level of depth but the narrative is just not there. Nevertheless, this was fairly entertaining despite my hatred of musicals so I have to give it credit.
7.5/10
Film#69 - Boogie Nights, 1997, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson
I love Paul Thomas Anderson's movies, well, at least a good portion of them. I also have a huge interest these days in ensemble casts. I don't even know why but for some reason anything with serious development of more than just a few key characters just sits well with me. I've seen this movie before. Actually I've seen half. When I first saw this several years ago I felt it was kind of slow and lacking real plot points. I've since gained a much deeper appreciation for films and particularly things that are about people rather than things. That's not to say this film isn't full of great plot points, but it's very much about the interactions between the characters. This movie isn't about porn, but rather it uses the porn industry as a backdrop for the characters to be developed in a way that's just so unique it can't be ignored. I find one of my favourite parts about this film is that Anderson casts so many of the same actors in his films, namely John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, WIlliam H. Macy and Julianne Moore an they play such different parts. Rather than typecasting these actors he throws them into roles that are so radically different from the others that their performances are just that much better. It's a real push to develop each character as a unique identity within the story. Great film.
9.5/10
Film# 70 - Funny People, 2009, dir. Judd Apatow
I sat down to watch this thinking it was a comedy in the vein of a typical Apatow film. This was more or less not the same. It has some seriously funny moments for sure, but within the first 20 minutes a fairly dreary stage is set, and it becomes more of a serious film about comedians than a comedy. Adam Sandler again proves why he should be taken more seriously than just silly comedies, as he brings such depth to this character it feels just so real. This is not to mention his character is oddly fitting with him in a real world sense, as Sandler is playing a veteran comedian who is known for his silly comedy films. He has a form of leukemia and gets a new lease on life as a result. Sounds typical, but where this film branches off is the way he deals with it while under the public eye, while struggling to find happiness and fulfillment, to have true friends, all the while trying to be the 'funny guy' in the room. He befriends Seth Rogen, who is playing a struggling comedian, and they form a fairly convincing friendship. It goes beyond the surface level and at times hints at a truly caring relationship, but this glimpses are often masked by what I can only think are failed jokes. But this may be all part of the plan of the film, so show the struggle for these characters to cover up the problems of life with comedy and obviously not always being successful. In this sense, Funny People is hard to gauge. I can't be sure what is intended to be funny and what isn't, and it confuses the story. It keeps it from being a good comedy or a good drama, and places it somewhere in the middle where it's unsure of itself almost.
7.5/10
