The Secret Life of Words(dir. Isabel Coixet)
For some reason, I just knew that Sarah Polley was bound to get naked in this even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense and was completely unnecessary. I think she is attractive so that's not the reason why I'm complaining. It just seems rather ridiculous that an actress of her talent has to get topless for really no reason. Yes, I understand why her character got topless, but there was easily another way to go about that. I mean the story takes place on a fucking oil rig and she's a nurse that tends to a patient played by Tim Robbins, who is both blind and has burn wounds, so if anyone was bound to get naked, it would have probably been him. The film seemed too self-satisfied for it's own good with it's plot that was fairly contrived and a little too dramatic, but the performances make this one go down as easily as it possibly could. While my little rant above probably makes me sound like I didn't like the movie much, I actually enjoyed it even if it does have some obvious flaws. The whole little girl voiceover stuff was a little odd and I don't entirely understand what they were trying to go with that and the film seems to pat itself on the back a little too much for exposing these atrocities in the Balkans with Julie Christie's monologues, but ultimately because of the performances, I have to recommend.
*** out of ****
Eyes Wide Shut(dir. Stanley Kubrick)
After watching There Will Be Blood with it's Kubrick-inspired shenanigans, I decided I wanted the real deal so I bumped this up in my queue. This film could have been titled Dr. Bill Harford's Misadventures in Trying to Get Laid. It basically plays out as a sexual fantasy that is never able to be fulfilled that eventually goes sour and then eventually concludes with the possibility of sex and essentially hope. Tom Cruise's character, Dr. Bill Harford, is much like Bogie's in The Big Sleep with women throwing themselves at him left and right, but unlike Bogart's character, he actually wants the sex yet there's always something that has to pop up to kill the mood. He's not attracted to all the women that throw themselves at him, however. There's one exception to the rule that happens to be the first broad he turns to when he needs some poontang to cope with his current situation and when her boyfriend picks up, he decides to go out and visit the local prostitute he ran into from the night before. She's not there, but her sexy roommate is there and she seems willing to go downtown with him and then she breaks the news to him that her roommate that she thinks he had sex with but didn't has received the results of her blood test that says she is HIV positive. Did I mention that this news followed the most erotically-charged scene in the movie that happened to expose zero skin whatsoever and that all of this is played for comedy? The difference between Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson is simply the fact that Kubrick knows how to handle the pitch-black comedy of his hero's exploits while still retaining a sense of sympathy for him despite essentially taunting him throughout the narrative while Anderson seems incapable of weaving elements of comedy and drama in a non-slipshod fashion. It's the difference between a master and a director still trying to master his craft. Kubrick is also smart enough to provide an ending that basically lets the audience in on the joke instead confound them by not allowing them to decipher whether he had his tongue firmly placed in cheek or not while filming it. I wouldn't call this film a masterpiece or anything, but it's still definitely one to watch. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
For some reason, I just knew that Sarah Polley was bound to get naked in this even if it didn't make a whole lot of sense and was completely unnecessary. I think she is attractive so that's not the reason why I'm complaining. It just seems rather ridiculous that an actress of her talent has to get topless for really no reason. Yes, I understand why her character got topless, but there was easily another way to go about that. I mean the story takes place on a fucking oil rig and she's a nurse that tends to a patient played by Tim Robbins, who is both blind and has burn wounds, so if anyone was bound to get naked, it would have probably been him. The film seemed too self-satisfied for it's own good with it's plot that was fairly contrived and a little too dramatic, but the performances make this one go down as easily as it possibly could. While my little rant above probably makes me sound like I didn't like the movie much, I actually enjoyed it even if it does have some obvious flaws. The whole little girl voiceover stuff was a little odd and I don't entirely understand what they were trying to go with that and the film seems to pat itself on the back a little too much for exposing these atrocities in the Balkans with Julie Christie's monologues, but ultimately because of the performances, I have to recommend.
*** out of ****
Eyes Wide Shut(dir. Stanley Kubrick)
After watching There Will Be Blood with it's Kubrick-inspired shenanigans, I decided I wanted the real deal so I bumped this up in my queue. This film could have been titled Dr. Bill Harford's Misadventures in Trying to Get Laid. It basically plays out as a sexual fantasy that is never able to be fulfilled that eventually goes sour and then eventually concludes with the possibility of sex and essentially hope. Tom Cruise's character, Dr. Bill Harford, is much like Bogie's in The Big Sleep with women throwing themselves at him left and right, but unlike Bogart's character, he actually wants the sex yet there's always something that has to pop up to kill the mood. He's not attracted to all the women that throw themselves at him, however. There's one exception to the rule that happens to be the first broad he turns to when he needs some poontang to cope with his current situation and when her boyfriend picks up, he decides to go out and visit the local prostitute he ran into from the night before. She's not there, but her sexy roommate is there and she seems willing to go downtown with him and then she breaks the news to him that her roommate that she thinks he had sex with but didn't has received the results of her blood test that says she is HIV positive. Did I mention that this news followed the most erotically-charged scene in the movie that happened to expose zero skin whatsoever and that all of this is played for comedy? The difference between Kubrick and Paul Thomas Anderson is simply the fact that Kubrick knows how to handle the pitch-black comedy of his hero's exploits while still retaining a sense of sympathy for him despite essentially taunting him throughout the narrative while Anderson seems incapable of weaving elements of comedy and drama in a non-slipshod fashion. It's the difference between a master and a director still trying to master his craft. Kubrick is also smart enough to provide an ending that basically lets the audience in on the joke instead confound them by not allowing them to decipher whether he had his tongue firmly placed in cheek or not while filming it. I wouldn't call this film a masterpiece or anything, but it's still definitely one to watch. I highly recommend.
***1/2 out of ****
No comments:
Post a Comment