'Firefly' was another great show that didn't make it past the first season because ratings weren't good enough. Too bad as it was wildly original and very funny. Here's my favorite episode: Episode 6, "Our Mrs. Reynolds", where Mal inadvertantly gets married and his new bride isn't what she seems to be. Enjoy this full-length episode!
-- Janaki Cedanna
With the end of the writers strike nowhere in sight, two stars of the hit HBO show say that the show might never come back.
-- Janaki Cedanna
read more | digg story
One of the best clips from the first season of "30 Rock" when Liz finally talks to Cerie about her inappropriate choice of clothing at the office. Cerie is hot!
-- Janaki Cedanna
Enjoy Lindsay Lohan in a fake commercial for Coin Slot Cream.
Pretty funny!!
-- Janaki Cedanna
The era of Hulu is here. Simply put, this IS the future of online video services.
Started a couple of months ago by networks like NBC and Fox and with the support of Sony and MGM, Hulu offers full length television shows (past and present) and soon feature films free with minimal commercial breaks. There is one sponsor per show and in an hour show there might be 4 breaks showing one commercial, which isn't bad at all.
The site uses the h.264 codec for optimum quality and if your computer is capable then you will be able to see true HD content as well, which is amazing. This is a very cool site and a great way to watch your favorite shows in great quality anytime, anywhere.
Find out more about Hulu here.
Here is a partial list of the content found on Hulu:
Every once in awhile a film comes along that has all the right ingredients to make a motion picture an instant classic. The ingredients to make a classically perfect film are volatile at best and rarely do modern filmmakers get it just right. "Juno" is such a film.
Director Jason Reitman, son of classic comedy filmmaker Ivan Reitman of "Ghostbusters" fame picked up right where he left off after his breakthrough film "Thank You For Smoking" in 2005. With "Juno", Reitman hits all the right notes as he deftly coaxes brilliant performances out of the stellar cast, including Ellen Page with a superstar making turn as the title character.
The film is a comedy about 16-year old Juno MacGuff (played brilliantly by the stellar Ellen Page) who has unprotected sex with her naive and meek boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (a wonderful Michael Cera) and before you know it, she gets pregnant. Not wanting to tell her dad (a very funny J.K. Simmons) and her stepmom (a brilliant Allison Janney) she decides to get an abortion. Along the way she runs into a classmate who makes her
feel guilty and decides against it. With the help of her best friend (a very funny and natural Olivia Thirlby) Juno sets out on a quest to find the perfect adoptive parents. In the Penny Saver (you can find anything in there) she finds the perfect people that could adopt her baby. By all appearances, Mark and Vanessa (played by the glowing Jennifer Garner and the less manic than usual Jason Bateman) are the perfect married couple who can't have kids but underneath they are as screwed up as Juno herself. As a surrogate mom, Juno gets closer to them and we find out that Mark is unhappy and is thinking of leaving Vanessa.
But the real story is how Juno manages herself during her pregnancy while still going to school and getting the "stink eye" from classmates and Paulie's mom, who doesn't know that her son is the father. Juno's relationship with her dad is very endearing but she still handles him and everyone else with a biting and sarcastic wit, which is as we all know, just a cover for her awkwardness as a teenager.
This film wouldn't work if not for the brilliantly conceived script that is laced with sarcasm and rapid-fire witticisms that spew so naturally out of Page's mouth that I thought at least some of them could be adlibbed. Writer turned stripper turned phone sex operator turned blogger turned screenwriter Diablo Cody, has written a piece of cinematic gold. The film is laced with sardonic wit and is on one hand touching and the other, hilariously funny. The intelligence of this script is staggering. The meteoric rise of Diablo Cody really started with this film as she is now the flavor of the month in Hollywood with a Showtime show in development and a best selling book. Like it or not world, Diablo Cody is the future of Hollywood screenwriters.
Now let's talk about the star of the film, Ellen Page. When she burst on the scene with her harrowingly mature and blazing performance in 2005's "Hard Candy" (see my review here) I knew then and there that this girl would be a superstar and with her performance in this film, I was right. With another actress in this role the film would have still been good but with Ellen this film rises to epic proportions. So effortless and brilliant is her performance here, that I really believe she is Juno MacGuff. Not once does the sometimes difficult dialogue seem unnatural flowing from her lips and her reactions and facial expressions are priceless. Ellen Page is an actress that absolutely buries herself in a role and appears so natural that it boggles the mind. I mean she is THAT good. Scary good and very, very funny. All actresses, young and old, need to take a cue from her as she is hands down the best actress of her generation, I mean no one comes close. Also, have I mentioned that I absolutely love her voice??
The supporting characters are all wonderful and in the end I wish I could have spent more time with all of them. Jennifer Garner, who herself has shown a deft touch with comedy, has the best role of her career as an overeager and overprotective career woman who can't have children. We have all seen roles where a woman has "baby fever" but Garner subtly gives us much, much more. She goes from neurotic to sweet in the same scene (often in the same sentence) and you get the feeling she would make an ideal loving mother. Jason Bateman usually plays the wise ass but here he dials down his performance portraying a sweet man-child who just goes along for the ride. J.K. Simmons also has a chance to dial down his usual loudmouth roles to play a sweet and supportive father to a girl that is mature way beyond her years. Allison Janney also gives a great performance as the stepmom who is wise and brash all at the same time. Now we know where Juno gets some of her biting wit. Michael Cera plays Paulie with just the right amount of immaturity and naivete that one would expect, as he is totally bowled over by Juno's directness and the sheer force of her personality. Olivia Thirlby plays Juno's best friend to a tee. All the kids act like typical teenagers which makes Juno's maturity stand out even more. Rainn Wilson also has an unforgettable cameo as a clerk that you can't miss.
Reitman shows the passage of time of Juno's pregnancy with a running gag of the boys track team, in what I think is an homage to his dad, Ivan, which works symbolically. The character of Juno herself is shown, despite her obvious mistake, to be a level-headed and eccentric person. She shows up at Paulie's house sitting in a lounge chair with a pipe in her mouth. She likes punk bands from the late 70's and Dario Argento movies. She's a unique specimen in a sugar-coated world. She's special and she knows it, herein lies the perfection.
So, this is what it takes to make a perfect film: a great script, perfect casting, brilliant performances and a deft touch from a director. Lastly, it has to look good. And once again "Juno" succeeds. The comedic timing hits all the perfect notes and the pacing is pitch perfect. Great comedy comes from the situation the characters find themselves in as well as their surroundings. And this film is filled to the brim with great comedic sequences and I for one would LOVE to see a sequel. Hint, hint.
This is a must see film that will have you in stitches and is a textbook example of how great filmmaking unfolds. I guarantee that you will fall in love with the very funny, sarcastic and brilliant Ellen Page and that you will love this movie for what it is, a ingenious and topical comedy that is extremely satisfying.
Musings Grade: A+
-- Janaki Cedanna
All images © 2007 Fox Searchlight Pictures
p.s. I had an opportunity to shoot an interview with Ellen Page on the promo tour for "Juno" but unfortunately she cancelled at the last moment due to her extensive traveling promoting the film. Bummer, I would have LOVED to meet her and talk about about the film and her career. Maybe next time! But here's the trailer you can check out.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson's latest film "There Will Be Blood"
has already been nominated for all kinds of awards and is a fixture on most top 10 lists of the year, so it appears I'm in the minority when I say I didn't like the film.
Sure, Daniel Day-Lewis is exceptional in the Howard Hughes meets William Randolph Hearst powerhouse role, but beyond that?? The problem with this film is almost as complicated as the way it is told. Let me explain.
Day-Lewis stars as Daniel Plainview, an oddity of a man who starts the film in 1898 as a silver and gold miner but quickly turns to oil. The first fifteen minutes or so has almost no dialogue as we watch Daniel injure himself in a mining accident and then turn his attention inexplicably to oil drilling. After a drilling accident claims the life of one of his men, Daniel finds himself responsible for the young baby of his employee. Jumping ahead 10 years we see that Daniel has become a successful oil man that now takes his young son along with him as he tries to buy up land from the unsuspecting populace so he can drill for oil. What should have been a fascinating character study
of a deeply conflicted and coldhearted man instead leaves me cold as I would have loved to see what made Daniel tick, instead we just see his double dealings with no clear insight of what made him the man he is.
To make matters worse, Daniel is surrounded by a lackluster and equally unfeeling, bland group of characters that include his son (Dillon Freasier) and his right man Fletcher (Cirian Hines). The only interesting and complex character that pops up is the local self-proclaimed prophet and religious nut Eli Sunday (played with gusto by Paul Dano.) As Daniel's only adversary, Eli not so subtly hides behind the veil of religion to further his own end. Daniel seems to be the only one in town who sees Eli for who he actually is, a charlatan. The movie was very predictable as you could see plot developments coming a mile away. Such things like a fake brother showing up to con Daniel and Daniel turning on his adopted son.
The movie itself is very fragmented and technically it wasn't very good. Many of the shots were long and devoid of any color. I suppose it was a conscious choice to drain the color out of it to give it more of a dirty feeling but instead of it being a sweeping vision contrasted by unlikable characters, it just looked bland and uninteresting. But my major pet peeve was the score. Not only was it way too loud and distracting but it didn't fit with the images or even the genre of film. It was more like horror or thriller music and it was just plain awful. Imagine Daniel Day-Lewis walking with his son to the oil well and wait, here comes the music right out of the "Shining", I was like what the hell??
But ultimately this was Daniel Day-Lewis' film and he does not disappoint. He has always been a great method actor and even though I have never really been a fan of his, he WAS this character. He was so believable and downright real it was scary. I actually felt his pain when in later years he moved around so stiffly that my joints ached just watching him. He was a one man tour-de-force. Paul Dano has a future playing power hungry and mad evangelicals if he chooses as the creepiness was actually oozing out of his pores. The best scene in the film was at the end with the final showdown between Daniel and Eli, it was played so well it actually was funny in it's grotesqueness.
In my opinion, director Paul Thomas Anderson peaked with "Boogie Nights" and now makes movies so fragmented and sterile that it seems like he's not having any fun. It's okay to be serious filmmaker but c'mon Paul, lighten up a bit.
In conclusion, this male dominated piece of pointless filmmaking should not be held up in high regard because that will only stoke Anderson to keep making trash like this. The ONLY reason this film should be seen is for Daniel Day-Lewis' magnetic and mesmerizing performance and that my friends is the only reason this film didn't get an "F" in my book.
Musings Grade: C
-- Janaki Cedanna
All images © 2007 Paramount Vantage
Everyone's heard of the Rom-Com genre right? Well, "P.S. I Love You" is the latest in the line of what I like to call the Rom-Death-Com genre.
You know the films that have a spouse or parent die in the beginning and then we get to spend the entire film felling the pain of the survivor and in a comedic way? Morbid right?
The film boasts great cache of actors centered around Holly Kennedy (Hilary Swank) as the devoted but slightly neurotic wife (a different role for her) of Gerry Kennedy (Gerard Butler in a VERY different role for him) who dies within the first 10 minutes of the film of a brain tumor. The rest of the film Holly tries to cope with passing of her only true love (only in the movies folks) with the help of her mother Patricia (Kathy Bates being Kathy Bates) and her two best friends Sharon (a tone downed Gina Gershon. Too bad as she's aging very well) and Denise (Lisa Kudrow playing a very irritating variant of her same roles), along the way she finds a possible love interest in a straightforward Daniel (Harry Connick Jr. playing a strange and unlikeable character).
The gimmick in this film is that somehow as he lay dying for a month or so not only did they not reconcile any past issues they may have had but somehow he found the time and energy to create an elaborate scheme to contact Holly with letters and surprise gifts the year following his death without her knowledge. Umm, okay. Not only is that incredibly implausible but it's downright creepy.
The film starts with your standard New York City shots accompanied by Rom-Com music but then leads us straight into a fight Holly and Gerry are having about some random comment about children to her mother. Not only is this fight cringe worthy but it becomes apparent very quickly how wrong they are for each other. She's the uptight know-it-all who can't hold a job because she thinks she's better than everybody but just wants things to be perfect before they have kids, and he's a happy go-lucky stereotypical singing Irishman who just wants to have fun. A match made in Rom-Com heaven right? I wondered why they actually loved each other as there was absolutely no spark or chemistry between them. In fact, their whole argument seemed like a rejected "Odd Couple" script with Holly as Felix and Gerry as Oscar. Only Tony Randall and Jack Klugman actually HAD chemistry.
Anyway, cut to the funeral at her mom's bar (what?) and we see the typical Irish priest blabbering and shot glasses of liquor on Gerry's cremated ashes box. Later on, the sleazy Denise (Kudrow) is cruising the wake for single guys and the even sleazier Daniel (Connick) tries to pick up Holly at her dead husband's wake. Seriously, this is no joke. I couldn't make this shit up. Did I mention this all happens in the first twenty minutes of the film?? Moving on, she goes into hibernation in her luxurious Manhattan apartment, (yeah right, one of the things they fought about was that they had no money) she passes the time singing along to old films (another Rom-Com cliche) not answering the phone or taking a shower until her birthday when the first message from dead Gerry appears. Her mom and her friends are there when Gerry sends her a cake with a tape recorder saying to expect many more messages over the next year. Um, creepy right? He tells her in his happy go lucky voice (he made this when he was dying right?) to move on as he starts assigning her tasks and proves on the tape that he knows her so well. If that's true why were they always fighting?? Oh well, all is right in the Rom-Death-Com.
I won't bore you with rest of the stupid and cliched film so here are the highlights. The tasks he assigns her were the sore points of their marriage like the time they went karaokeing and she got injured after he forced her to perform, um, that's pointless. And the reveal that not only did her not like him but his parents didn't like her. So what happens? He sends her and her two friends to an all expenses paid trip to Ireland to sort out any issues with his parents. So much for them not having any money right? So how does she repay him? She sleeps with a local Irish guy that reminds her of Gerry who in typical Rom-Com style, happens to be Gerry's best friend from his childhood. Again, creepy. Did I mention that Holly suddenly and inexplicably becomes a successful shoe designer?? Ultimately after some more cringe worthy moments, Holly comes to terms with Gerry's death and just when you think that her and and the creepy Daniel get together they don't, but Holly is happy anyway. Not to mention their story is told with the other cliche, flashbacks! Yeah, this is a very strange flick.
Writer/Director Richard LaGravenese who gave us other sob stories like the "Horse Whisperer" and "The Bridges of Madison County" knows this territory as all his so-called love stories have characters experiencing a major loss or tragedy. Although this time he goes way too far with I think was supposed to be a story about love and hope but instead turns into a weird and creepy story of love and loss. This guy should be stopped from making any other films and if he does he should be charged with crimes against humanity.
The only reason I give this film a "C" grade and not an "F" is the committed and luminous performance from Hilary Swank. Not only does she play a role that is vastly different from the manly and tough parts she usually does but she manages to parlay those horse-like features she has into an emotionally charged and nuanced yet subtle performance. This is why she is a two-time Oscar winner. Did I mention that she actually looks pretty sexy in this?? You can tell that she is actually relishing playing a girlie role as she exudes sexuality every chance she gets. Problem is that this script is not only morbid but just plain stupid as well. You should only see this film if you are fan of hers as that's the ONLY reason to see it.
This film will be dead on arrival when it hits the theaters and it will be quickly dismissed as irrelevant, creepy and strange fluff. At least I hope so.
Musings Grade: C
-- Janaki Cedanna
All images © 2007 Warner Bros.
I've never been a fan of the fantasy genre as I think the fans are usually WAY too obsessed with living in an alternate universe. They usually try to adopt the fantasy philosophy into their lives which sadly makes them look like idiots.
Let me breakdown the genre for you. It's always the same thing, some unlikely person (usually a kid) finds themselves on some sort of pseudo spiritual quest for a ring, a book, a sword, a leaf or some other everyday object and along the way they cross paths with some pseudo spiritual guide who helps them along, blah, blah, blah. This is the problem with fantasy stories. They always bring in some kind of religious element into the mix in some mishmash way (thanks George Lucas.) And then without any explanation the unlikely hero attains the goal because of their faith. This makes for a total crapfest and pushes religion as some sort of catchall for everything that is right and wrong with people. To me it's propaganda at it's worst and dangerous. Why can't you just have a great story without all the religious overtones shoved down my throat? If I wanted some new kind of religion than I would sign up for Scientology. Oh wait, they're crazy.
Alas, a fantasy movie for the sane people in society has arrived. "The Golden Compass"
is based on the first novel in a trilogy by Philip Pullman that removes any religious allegory and just tells a refreshing story (if there was a God I would thank her for Philip Pullman) that still has the fantasy elements but instead relies on smarts and common sense for it's hero instead of some Godlike mumbo jumbo. And no, I haven't read his books either.
There has been lots of negative buzz about this film from those fanatical religious groups because of the removal of God from the story. This more than anything made me want to see this film. Seriously, why don't all those religious zealots just go away? I mean haven't they learned anything from their own history of torture and murder in the name of religion? This country has been hijacked by these nuts that are so insecure in their religion they attack ANYTHING that they think doesn't include God. They would do much better if they stopped ramming their delusions down peoples throats and stopped judging everyone for their different beliefs. I could go on but this is a movie review not a manifesto.
Anyway, on to the film. Lyra Belacqua (Dakota Blue Richards) is a precocious 11 year-old roaming the collegiate home of her uncle, Lord Asriel (Daniel Craig), with her animal other half (known as Daemons), Pantalaimon, at her side. Gifted with a truth-revealing compass device called an Alethiometer (Golden Compass), Lyra finds herself in severe jeopardy when the wicked Mrs. Coulter (Nicole Kidman) shows up to claim the girl and the compass for the benefit of the vile Gobblers. Meeting up with loyal (and on the run) Gyptians, cowboys (Sam Elliot), witches (Eva Green), and earning the life debt of a disgraced Ice Bear (a polar bear crossed with an attitude and a bad hangover) named Lorek Byrnison (robustly voiced by Ian McKellen), Lyra heads to the arctic to save a group of children undergoing experiments performed by the Gobblers and find the secret of a mysterious luminescent substance called Dust. And if you understood all of that then you've earned bonus points.
Generally, when a new fantasy film is made there has to be lots of exposition just to bring the average commoner up to speed with a new and different world. This film is different because there isn't any long soliloquy from a major character explaining things for the retards out there to understand. It operates with the assumption that people aren't as dumb as we think but that they can catch on to something new. That's a powerful assumption as I happen to think that most people are that dumb, just look at the success of shows like CSI that take away any imagination and spell every damn thing out for you. Anyway, I digress.
The film itself is luminously shot with exact attention for detail and beauty. New Line Cinema the studio that took a chance on then relatively unknown horror director Peter Jackson when they greenlit the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy again take a chance on Director Chris Weitz who's claim to fame was "American Pie" (yes, THAT American Pie) and "About a Boy", and it payed off. Weitz has succeeded in making a visually stunning film filled with great acting, exciting situations and a controlled narrative. He knows how to give pacing and balance to a film of this magnitude which is indeed a feat in itself.
Call me old-fashioned but there are a few things that actually get me to see a film. One thing that'll get me every time is a film where one of my favorite stars appears and when I found out that Nicole Kidman was playing a major part in this I had to see it. I'll see just about anything Kidman is in just like I would for Scarlett Johansson and Milla Jovovich. And believe me she doesn't disappoint here. As Mrs. Coulter, Kidman slinks around with all the sexual energy she so aptly exudes. She plays wickedness so well that it reminded me of her fierce performance years ago in "To Die For." The scene when she walks into the school is downright stunning with her in that form fitting gold dress flashing those incredible blue eyes, ouch! One complaint on that outfit is that that they should have had her wear a gold bra underneath instead of a white one. Way to drop the ball costume designer!! Unfortunately, Nicole is in too few scenes.
The film centers around Dakota Blue Richards who was plucked out of obscurity when the producers had open auditions in England and over 10,000 little girls showed up. Dakota does a remarkable job in conveying the mixed emotions required for such a role as she more than ably holds her own against Kidman and Daniel Craig (in a brief role). She makes you root for her, especially when she finally takes matters into her own hands and takes on the establishment. In filmmaking casting is everything and this time the producers got it right.
There are very clever things in this film that let the viewer know they are in an alternate universe not so dissimilar from our own. The coolest thing were their modes of transportation. Who knew that in an advanced society they travel by a very cool kind of blimp? This is not the Goodyear blimp people, but a very interesting flying fortress. You know the expression, "You can't improve on the wheel", well they did and it looks amazing. The fact that the most stunningly impressive sequence in the film involves a fight in the Ice Bear kingdom is a stroke of pure genius. And finally, every human has their own personal "Daemon" (pronounced demon) by there side since birth to protect and look over them is a very novel and cool idea that externalizes ones own inner conscience (and it should piss off the religious nuts to no end.) Add the fact that they can shape shift when they're children it becomes an even a cooler idea. The deep imagination of Philip Pullman is very evident here and it makes me want to see more.
Of course no film is without it's flaws and this film is no different. The three complaints I have with the film are minimal but important nonetheless. Sam Elliott plays the cowboy Lyra meets on her travels and he delivers the SAME EXACT performance he's given his entire career. You know, the talking with his head down and one eye looking at you bit with that irritating southern accent. I just kept imagining his performance in "Mask". You've seen this guy do the same old shtick time and time again. His scenes took me right out of the story.
The other thing was the golden compass sequences themselves. Now Lyra is supposed to be the only who can decipher truths from it, but when she looks into it they show us weird convoluted barely there images and then she looks up and tells everyone in exacting terms what's going to happen. I saw that and said "what?" I mean how the hell did she get this whole story out of some gold particled image that was so obscure? You call this movie "The Golden Compass" and then give us weird and extremely vague images? Those sequences should have been the coolest and direct ones but noooo.
Lastly, the ending was so abrupt it left me wanting more, but not in a good way. Since this is designed to be a trilogy it would make sense that the first film would have an ending just in case it's not received well and then they can leave the second one open-ended. Did they not learn anything from LOTR or "Star Wars?"
Overall, this movie is very good and I highly recommend it for pure and smart entertainment. See it for the stunning visuals and intelligent story. See it for the great performances and the effervescent and stunning Nicole Kidman. See it for the clever way they redesigned known items. And if you're religious? Have faith in your own beliefs and see this film knowing that you won't come out of it an atheist as organized religions have led you to believe.
At the writing of this review, the film has already opened and not lived up to box office expectations, so it's not known if the other two films will ever get made. This is such a pity because the genre needs films like this. While the religious cults of the country are crowing over their victory in getting people to avoid this film, I feel a profound sense of sadness that the people of the U.S. are actually are every day becoming more of a follower instead of becoming more open-minded leaders.
I just hope that New Line makes the other films to prove to all those Bible wielding fanatics that what they say or think is NOT fact but opinion and to give the rest of us sane people the opportunity to enjoy fantasy films without being preached to.
Musings Grade: A
-- Janaki Cedanna
All images © 2007 New Line Cinema
Jeremy Piven and Kevin Dillon are squaring off again in their yearly awards rivalry.
read more | digg story
I guess I was one of those rare individuals who somehow missed being forced to read "Beowulf" in school so as a result I didn't know anything about the story. What can I say, I was the product of the public school system.
Going into it all I knew is that Angelina Jolie was supposed to be naked (Whoohoo!), it was shot with motion capture maximized for 3D and that Robert Zemeckis directed it. And that was good enough for me.
The story is based on the seventh century poem about a Viking hero who even with the best intentions falls prey to lust and greed when he tries to fight a monster that's been wreaking havoc in a far away kingdom. Apparently this poem is one of the first pieces of western literature ever written and as such it's pretty convoluted. Screenwriters Neil Gaiman and Roger Avery have taken the essence of this poem and brought it to life in a very easy to understand way, perhaps too easy at times as I felt I was being hit on the head with pseudo religious allegory. But hey, they're no dummies, right?
But let's get back to the best part. Angelina Jolie as the monster's mom. Wow, she looked scarily real. It was extremely obvious that most of the budget went to making her look downright delicious and also to make Beowulf NOT look like Ray Winstone. Money well spent on both accounts.
At first glance, a movie about child abduction might conjure up an image of a cheesy made for TV movie, but look closer and you will discover a film so surprisingly smart and well made you'll be talking about it long afterwards.
Rarely do I see a film that stuns me as much as this one did. My thoughts were racing all over the place as I left the theater. Amazing, gorgeous, extraordinary, breathtaking. This is a landmark achievement of cinema, I thought.
'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' starring Cate Blanchett, Clive Owen and Geoffrey Rush is a film of stunning greatness. But I haven't been hearing great things. The film has been called "campy" and "melodramatic" among other cynical remarks. But I don't care, I really like this two hour epic and continuing saga of the original Queen Elizabeth.
Cate Blanchett reprises her role nearly ten years after her star making turn in 'Elizabeth'. In that film she plays the young girl who becomes one of the greatest Queens of all time while remaining a virgin. Here years later, she tries to protect her Christian country against the rampaging Spanish Armada and it's Catholic King Philip, played wonderfully and with charisma by, Jordi Molla. Still a virgin, old Queenie starts courting various European royalty at the behest of her advisor, Sir Francis Walsingham played terrifically understated (and underused) by Geoffrey Rush when Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen) catches her eye. But alas, it wasn't meant to be as the roguish Raleigh woos the Queens maidservant. All this is going on while the tides of war are about to strike. Good thing she was a virgin, she can't be thinking of love when she's got to go to war!
Blanchett owns this role. She was so superb that an Oscar nom is most definitely in the bag. She is the centerpiece and she doesn't disappoint. Director Shekhar Kapur full realizes this as the camera lingers on Cate's beautifully flawless translucent skin and her mesmerizing and expressive eyes. Good thinking Shekhar. Not only does Cate look amazing but she infuses the Queen with real human frailties. It's great to see that the Queen is human after all. Clive Owen doesn't do much besides stand around looking doe-eyed for all the ladies of the court but no matter as when it's time for war he puts on his serious Clive face and kicks some Spanish ass. Samantha Morton plays the imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots and even though her on-screen time is brief she delivers a memorable and powerful performance. Doesn't she always?
Now the other eye candy. The sets and costumes were down right phenomenal as every detail was perfect. Candy is the operative word here as I felt it was a feast for my eyes. Everything from the smooth and lengthy shots, to the editing was flawless. This is a film that PROVES that you don't have to have a quick cut every two seconds or have shaky camera moves in order to tell a story. Leave that to Michael Bay. Even the climatic battle against the Spanish Armada was flawlessly done (albeit short.) The CGI in the battle sequence was so real that I felt cold when the wind blew. It was done in a very balletic and non-intrusive way as to make you feel as if were actually there. Very impressive. My Oscar predictions are noms for Cate, cinematography, art direction, costumes, and possibly best picture.
Simply put, this film was amazing. Sure the story might not have been as strong as the first one and the music could have been softer at times but what makes this film rise above the rest of the dreck playing at a theater near you is that filmmaking is an art form and this film IS art.
Throw out your misconceptions about "period" films as this one has humor, action, drama and love all intertwined in a harmonious way. So sit back and watch this film with it's sheer power and magnitude and I promise you will feel uplifted when it's over. Is it campy and melodramatic? Maybe. Or maybe peoples cynicism don't allow them to enjoy a well made piece of cinema anymore. Maybe I just enjoy the art of great filmmaking. You decide and let me know what you think.
Musings Grade: A
-- Janaki Cedanna
Every now and then a really smart movie makes it to the multiplexes. 'Michael Clayton', starring George Clooney, is such a film. Problem is, sometimes it's just too smart for it's own good.
To me the film is an homage to the 70's political thrillers (the well made ones) in as much as it takes it's time spinning a tale that ultimately leads to a satisfying climax.
The film centers on legal "fixer" Michael Clayton, played by good ole George to weary perfection. I don't think I've ever seen him look so tired and worn out with big bags under his eyes. But I digress. Whenever the huge legal firm he works for needs to solve problems they call in Michael to do the dirty work all the while keeping him on the books as a trial attorney. Growing weary of doing "janitorial" work Michael takes a case to get his old friend and mentor Arthur back on his meds. Arthur played to great passive aggressiveness by the always luminous Tom Wilkinson, has just freaked out during a deposition by babbling seemingly incoherently and by ripping his clothes off. Michael immediately flies out to take care of the situation but along the way he finds out that maybe Arthur is telling the truth and isn't as crazy as he seems. Thus begins the road to redemption that leads Michael to uncovering an awful truth.
Famed director Sydney Pollack just acts in this one as the firms senior partner and is magnificent as a steely eyed attorney who doesn't as much care for the truth as he does about the bottom line. Tilda Swinton is excellent as the attorney on the other side who only cares about looking good for the senior partners.
The pacing of this pretty long film is very quick which surprised me because of the subject matter. I mean, how many times have we seen lawyers standing around talking about lawyerly things?? How boring is that?? Not this time as Clooney's performance is the glue that holds all of this together. Now I have to say that I don't usually like old Georgie boy with his smarmy grin. But I was surprised by the stripped down performance that he gives here. Gone were the grins and Clooney facial tics that I have come to hate, replaced with a road weariness that frankly I didn't expect. It was refreshing just to see him act.
On the technical side, the film looked great. Not only did the characters seem worn out but so did New York itself. Again another thing that reminded me of those grungy looking 70's films like "Taxi Driver" or the "French Connection."
Directed by first-timer Tony Gilroy (he wrote the Bourne films) with beautiful long shots, he should have sat back, patted himself on the back and said, "Well done!" for making such engaging film that builds up steadily with a great payoff. But instead he curiously decided to start the movie in flashback mode and basically showed the end of the film first, so when the ending arrived it was a letdown. He (and the studio) thought they had to give into the modern aesthetic of having something blow up at the beginning to keep the interest of those with five second attention spans. Very sad. He also overdid a trite technique of having a main character do a voiceover at the beginning of the film, except this time it went on for several minutes with the Wilkinson character rambling incoherently about nothing. Not only did it not make sense but it was very hard to follow with the swelling of the music.
So, in my mind those two things nearly ruined a perfectly smart film. But I could be nitpicking, decide for yourself and remember to leave your short attention spans at the door.
Musings Grade: B+
-- Janaki Cedanna
I heard the news today about one of my favorite "hottie" actresses taking the top spot in Esquires Sexiest Woman in the World. Gotta love those lists!
I actually had a chance to meet the luscious Charlize in person earlier this year at the ASC Awards in L.A. She looked very cute in person and she smelled soooo good. She was also a very shy and sweet girl especially when she complimented me on my tux. Check out the pic I took of her!
Who knew she had a tattoo on the top of her foot?
All you ever wanted know (but were afraid to ask) about the hiatus happenings of the Entourage cast.
read more | digg story
"Dedication" starring Billy Crudup, Mandy Moore and Tom Wilkinson is a film that at first seems to be compelling but ultimately is filled with genre cliches, banal and lazy storytelling and simplistic plot devices. The acting is what saves this kind of film from itself and even though this film delivers strong performances it's missing something.
Unfortunately, this is a story that reminds us of an unfunny "As Good As It Gets" where Billy Crudup plays a less charismatic and unlikeable Jack Nicholson (if that's even possible.) The story is frighteningly similar as our hero Henry Roth (Crudup) is a children's book writer that just wants to be left alone and when his illustrator (Wilkinson) dies he is saddled with a new one in the form of Lucy (Moore) who teaches him valuable lessons of love. Along the way, Henry decides to become a better person for her and after pushing her away he attempts to change and she mysteriously goes along with it.
The main problem here is while Nicholson showed the more human side of severe neurosis comedically, Crudup goes for the dramatic. He is mean to people for no apparent reason, incredibly misanthropic for the sake of pushing people away and is generally scared of everything and everyone around him. Crudup plays this role not as a person with hidden feelings but as a irreparably damaged person that just doesn't care. So when he suddenly does care and develop feelings about Lucy it's all the more unbelievable. The great lengths he goes to win back her misplaced affection are as absurd as the fact that this guy could even begin to be a children's writer, let alone a successful one. His performance is the centerpiece of this story but his nonchalantness gets old very quickly. Characters such as his are supposed to change or evolve during the course of the film in order for the viewer to like them and be on their side. Crudup doesn't do this, instead he relies on trite facial tics to show he has any semblance of feelings.
Tom Wilkinson's performance is infused with an over-the-top irony as he acts as Henry's conscience in the later half of the film. Wilkinson chews up every scene he's in and you can tell that he's the only one enjoying himself. Mandy Moore's performance was not only a departure from her normal roles but it was chance to show a subtlety and depth with her acting. She delivers a moving and sweet performance of a damaged person that hasn't quite sunk to the depths of despair that Henry has. I have to say that when I first saw her in the film I like many others thought, Mandy Moore? But she quickly dispelled any doubts I had and disappeared into what I believe is a star turning role. She was so good that I was actually rooting for her character to get away from Henry as quickly as possible without turning back. If she had then that would have been a much different film. Bob Balaban and Dianne Weist play roles we've seen them in before, but much more outlandish. They are actually playing caricatures of the types they've become famous for and it seems they were only there to provide some much needed comic relief.
Ultimately, this film is missing "heart" and in the end I felt depressed and slightly dirty. It's as if the ugliness of Henry has somehow leapt of the screen and infected me with moroseness and self-loathing. I felt my first order of business was to take a long hot shower. I also felt that interacting with people (and having fun) will somehow make me forget the character of Henry.
The trailer leads you to believe this is a love story, and it is, just not in the way you think. The film succeeds in convincing you that love IS blind and inexplicable. If that's the strongest message one can get out of this mess then it has done it's job. If not? Then it's just a mess.
Musings Grade: C
-- Janaki Cedanna
"The Seeker: The Dark is Rising" is exactly what you've come to expect from a post-Harry Potter world in that there's nothing new here and it seems like we've seen it all before.
Based on another set of popular children's fantasy books this film might have worked if it had come out 10 years ago. But the problem is Harry Potter came out first and decided to tell it's epic story over seven films. Fantasy films that attempt to tell a new story need a sweeping canvas to do them any kind of justice, so by cramming a "new" story in an hour an a half makes for a shoddy film.
At different times throughout the film I felt like it had lifted various elements from nearly every other fantasy or Sci-Fi film in the genre. But I'll get into more of that later. This film is clearly aimed at pre-teens boys and girls and I immediately thought of it as "Harry Potter for Dummies." You know, like those fancy names usually given to people, things and places like in the Potter series or the Tolkien books were just too hard. It's almost as if the writer thought, "let me come up with the most generic names imaginable as to not confuse anybody." Good and evil will be the "Light" and the "Dark," the bad guy who rides a horse will be the "Rider" and the good people who have fought the bad ones for centuries will be "The Old Ones." Wow, and I thought my scripts were unimaginative.
The story is a simple one we've all seen a million times before, and much better I might add. In this one a a young boy (Alexander Ludwig) discovers that he is the last of a group of immortals dedicated to fighting evil. Traveling back and forth through time, he has to retrieve a series of clues before the sinister forces of evil get their mangy paws on them and bring about the end of the world. Umm, okay. Oh, and there's a also totally laughable twist about a long lost sibling.
Ludwig plays Will Stanton like he's trying out for a new version N'Sync with a stylish little gel flip in his hair and he clearly doesn't have the charisma required to play this role. Ian McShane plays one of the old ones and his only job is to stand around looking serious and explaining the entire backstory to not only young Will but to us. Funny how I understood it immediately while it took Will much longer for it to finally sink in. It made me question his intelligence, let me tell you. Perhaps the juiciest and most fleshed out role came from Christopher Eccleston who plays the Rider with such glee that he could make a living for the rest of his life in playing the baddie. But I've known that since his star making turn years ago in "Shallow Grave."
The unoriginality of this film was the most irritating part of it as it reminded me of Star Wars and revelations from the Bible all rolled into one, only much more bland and generic.
The film did get a few things right as it looked very beautiful and surreal and the special effects were top notch. I also thought that the fact that the Rider controlled animals to do his nasty work was a slightly different twist as well as a chance to show off some of the better CGI sequences I've seen in awhile. But it was a case of not enough and way too late.
Overall, these few things things are what elevated this film from a B-level film straight to DVD release, to a theatrical film that has a slight chance to make a profit. Now if only they had strung out this film to a series instead of cramming all of this into one film then this might have not have felt as rushed and simplistic.
Musings Grade: C
-- Janaki Cedanna
