Film Review: The Adjustment Bureau

I’m a big Matt Damon fan, so I relished the idea of seeing his new film on opening day with a friend who likes Matt Damon just as much. I also quite like Emily Blunt – her transition from supporting actress in Devil Wears Prada to pulling off the major role of the young Victoria in the same-named film gives her major kudos from me.

With Matt Damon’s recent list of films being almost all political thrillers, this is a story (and a character) slightly off from his usual. The movie became much more fantastical than I had first realized it was going to be, but it does so in a way that allows you to go with the story, creating a sort of belief in what’s going on for the viewer. It’s not just that someone else other than David Norris is controlling his destiny. It’s that the people who are doing it do it in a way beyond the human mind or capabilities. But the Matt Damon character takes his life and will into his own hands (with a little help from a so called “angel”) and manages to prove that he and his love interest in the film (Emily Blunt) can and will be together.

The film is based on the short story “Adjustment Team” by Philip K. Dick  (who also wrote the short stories that films like Blade Runner and Minority Report were based on) and deals with the idea of fate or destiny governed by a higher power vs. free will and making your own destiny. Although not extremely religious, the film’s theme certainly grabbles with the age-old debate on weather God sets our paths for us or if we choose them ourselves. I was pleased with the outcome of that argument that the film ends with, but I’ll leave that for you to see yourself and decide whether or not you agree.

Damon’s acting is just as good as ever, but this definitely seems to be a minor role in comparison to some of his others. He is much more romantic, and we see him making more decisions with his heart and emotions instead of with only his mind and logic. It could be the closest I’ve ever seen Matt Damon to a romantic comedy type role, even though the film doesn’t truly present itself in that format at all.

Blunt is very convincing as a dancer (as her character is a lead dancer in a real life NYC modern dance company called Cedar Lake Ballet), and as it turns out, she did all the dancing bits herself. She trained before filming began, and she looks lovely in the dancing scenes. A magazine I read in December 2010 was right: ballet is all the rage in 2011 (think Black Swan, this film, ballet flats that everyone is wearing, etc).

Overall, I loved the film. It was a nice change of pace for Damon and an interesting dive into the do-you-believe-in-fate question.

 

A Review of Watership Down

Last night we were at the library again, and David wanted to loan some DVDs. We came across a film he said he remembered parts of from seeing it as a child.

Frankly, even though the film is animated, I don’t believe this is truly a children’s story. Based on the book by Richard Adams, the theme and content could be much more than most children can handle. (After text messaging one of my friends asking if she had read the book or seen the film, she mentioned how her husband watched the movie as I child, and it gave him nightmares.) Much of kid lit tends to deal with much more mature material – often with something to say about our world. WATERSHIP DOWN seems to be same. It’s clear there’s a commentary on society within the story, but, it’s very much up to the reader/viewer to distinguish that.

After watching the plot of the main group of rabbits unfold, I took away the sense that the writer might have been saying that freedom is the most important thing to have. The rabbits just want to live free, however they please, and in a safe and comfortable place. Well, who doesn’t want that? Their exodus from their home warren brings them adventure, adversity, and the brutal truth that death is a part of life. Their encounter with a different group of rabbits that live entirely by order and command emphasizes their desire for freedom all the more, not to mention their will to live. I especially enjoyed the Hazel and Fiver characters, two of the main rabbits. Fiver is very much like a prophet to the other rabbits. His characterization highlights an interesting spiritual side of the story that I wasn’t expecting.

Since I haven’t read the book, here is what I thought of the animation. Produced in the late 70s, it certainly brought new light to animals and animation, since the likes of this type of movie was largely dominated by Disney. There was nothing sweet or funny about this movie – the beauty of the rabbits or the country side in England seemed more like background to the deep nature of the content. As mentioned by director Martin Rosen in the DVD’s special feature interviews, no one really wanted to market the film in the beginning, because it was hard to tell who the target audience was. In the end, the film was quite successful, and I suspect the help of Art Garfunkle’s voice on the main theme “Bright Eyes” made quite a difference. I very much enjoyed the music in the film – beautiful melodies that certainly enhanced the tone of the scenes.

If, like me, you’re not sure why it’s called Watership Down, that is the name of the actual hill in England the rabbits in the story are traveling to. It was said in the DVD features, that the crew set up at the real location to record sounds in the natural area, and those sounds made it into the soundtrack of the film, which I found quite cool. Usually movie sounds are created in a studio somewhere. I believe the actual sounds made in nature did give the movie an organic feel.

Though the animation was certainly not advanced, the attention to detail made the difference for me. Overall, I’m glad I watched the film. It did not have as much of a significant effect on me as I might have hoped, but perhaps that means I should really just read the book.

Coraline delights and thrills

I know I’m a bit late for a review of a DVD that released July 21, but I just watched this adorable movie the night before last – no pun intended.

This is now my second movie review on a Neil Gaimen adaptation in which I have not read the original source! (See the Stardust post.) I think it’s about time I read some of his books since I love the films.

About the movie:

Did anyone else think that Coraline’s father could have been a cartoon version of Adrian Brody?

Do you see it? It’s definitely the nose. It would have made me happy if Brody would have been the one to do this character’s voice. But no complaints here in that department.

Dakota Fanning produced a perfect voice for Coraline – child-like enough to be innocent but mature enough to be convincing. And the other voice of note would be Teri Hatcher as “the other Mother.” She pulled out such a lovely, warm voice in order for the character to reel Coraline into her world, but was then able to give the character that sinister tone to switch from love and care to absolute obsession.

Cinematography was great. The whole Nightmare-before-Christmas thing still isn’t cliche. I’d choose the term classic. No one can deny the effect those little clay characters have had on modern film complete with their somehow charming neo-gothic style (present in this movie when the other Mother turns bad and in the black cat).

A little note about the DVD – Interesting how Side B of the actual disc is the 3D version. I started out watching it like that, but I don’t exactly have 3D glasses lying around the house. (Are these going to be essential – relative, I know - for home movie watching in the future? Where do I buy them?) So, I switched it back over to the…2D side (?) which is definitely still 3D without all the objects coming toward you, by the way.

About the story:

Brilliant. So simple and not entirely original (everyone borrows from each other) – like Alice in Wonderland (whose not excited about Tim Burton’s endeavor next March?). I was totally enthralled, caught up in Coraline’s other world – great imagination.

I loved how such a deep, rather frightening concept was presented in a kid-friendly package. I’d like to think that the story initiates a dialogue or a thought in older kids (9-12) about what lures them away from their families and the dangers they impose.

Overall, cute little flick. Thoroughly enjoyed.

I read Twilight.

Like the thousands of other people. My friend to the left of my cubicle at work is reading it. My other friend to the right of my cubicle has read and owns all four books.

I finished it last Friday night and saw the movie Sunday. And I still keep wondering why, exactly, it’s such a phenomenon. Basic conclusion: main audience is women, and women will goo and gaa adamantly, and sometimes, obsessively over a good love story.

I probably won’t read the other books. Unless the copies are randomly given to me, like TWILIGHT was. I might see the other movies as they come out. The book probably could have been written better. The film definitely could have been made better.

Nevertheless, I’m still a little jealous of Stephanie Meyer. Not sure I’d want the kind of following she has going for her, but I wouldn’t mind having a little cameo in the movie made from my very first book! In the end, congrats to her. Hopefully, we’ll see more of her.

If she can do it, I can.

I saw a movie for free.

THE SPIRIT is “just damn plain weird” like a little man’s head connected to the top of a foot hopping around under a mad scientist’s experimenting table. If you’ve seen the movie, you understand me. I liked the film, but I really don’t know what it was about.

Thoughts?

Film Reviews

This weekend I had the chance to view a couple movies in my free time, which was well-welcomed to my husband and I after our work week.

DVD Release: “Get Smart”

Released November 4.     I had wanted to see this film in the theatres but never got the chance. I mostly wanted to see it because I love any Anne Hathaway movie. She’s perfect! And I highly regard her for not succumbing to the Hollywood picture of bodily perfection, aka, anorexia. I think she’s a great role model of what a healthy, beautiful woman is whether that’s on her agenda or not. I also couldn’t wait to see the movie because my husband has, since the first previews were released, been randomly saying the line “Did you forget the element of surpr–!” while throwing some object in my general direction. Mind you, the actual scene in the movie has Steve Correll’s character, a new agent for “Control,” a mock CSI type organization, throwing the handle end of a retro telephone being connected to the wire and bouncing back.

As far as comedy goes for the film, I give it 4 stars out of 5. I laughed out loud maybe once, but mostly it’s one of those “smile a lot because this is rather cute” type of films. The movie lends itself toward being a family film in that right, and it’s also not utterly obsene. I’ve never even seen the original version put out in 1965, but from images I’ve seen online, Steve Corell and Anne Hathaway were perfect for the parts.

    

Apparently, there’s a shoot-off film out now on DVD  which stars Get Smart’s two research anylysts for Control.  I highly doubt that film getting many good reviews. Maybe it’s funny, but I don’t see those two characters developed enough to have their own plot outside of the original film.

One thing I found interesting about Get Smart is that there were several cameo appearances from mainstream actors including James Caan (The Godfather) as the President, Bill Murray, and Kevin Nealon (both from SNL).

The film also protrays a developing love story between the two main characters, which I found incredibly sweet. So, call it a romantic comedy or a family film with a tad bit of action thrown in there. Either way, I think you’ll like it.

Theatre Release: “Austrailia”

Realeased November 26.    I really had no idea what this movie was going to be about walking into the theatre. All I knew was that Hugh Jackman is the lead male character, and honestly, that’s enough to check the film out. Not only is he nice to look at, but his movies are usually films I like.

Walking away from the theatre (mind you, 2 hours and 45 min later), I know a bit more about Austrailia’s mid 20th Century history. The movie takes place just before WW2 and ends circa 1945. However, the characters in the movie don’t seem to age. That wouldn’t be too much of a problem for the adults, but the plot centers around a young boy named Nullah, who is about 8 at the start of the movie. That would make him somewhere around 13 by the end of the movie, which is a significant change in childhood yet the boy remains the same throughout the film. It’s something that you don’t really catch while watching the movie. If you’re like me, you think about it while your writing your review, and you think, “Wow. That really doesn’t make sense.”

Other than that, the film’s pretty consistant with a rich plot. About an hour and 45 minutes into it, you think the movie could end. There’s been introduction, conflict, and now it’s time for a happy ending. But you realize, there’s still an hour left of the movie – more room for more conflict and for another happy ending. I don’t want to spoil it for anyone, but it’s a good thing that you don’t invest that much time into falling in love with these characters just to see one or more of them die at the end. I’m all for creating realistic pictures of life, but this one isn’t  (too) fake that it couldn’t be true.

    

The story is quite enlightening on race issues in Austrailia. I knew about the Aboringinal population, but I didn’t realize how badly they were treated in the past.

As far as the acting goes, Brandon Walters, who plays the young boy Nullah is mesmerizing. He’s got these great big beautiful eyes you just fall in love with, and I’m eager to see him flourish as an actor in the future.  Apparently, he really is Austrailian with Aboriginal decent. Hugh Jackman is, of course, great for his role. The only problem I had didn’t really come from an acting point of view, but rather, how the director chose to shoot him in one scene. Now, I know he’s ruggedly good-looking, but did they really have to have him pour water onto his chest in a scene where he’s apparently bathing in his pants? For a change, they didn’t over sexualize the actress in this movie, but how could you? It’s Nicole Kidman. I’m not saying she isn’t beautiful, but the woman is, after all, aging. And I could really tell in this movie. In fact, I kept feeling like she wasn’t really the best actress for this part. That’s pretty harsh for a review of Nicole Kidman; she’s got a variety of acting skills I admire. But maybe there was something not quite convincing enough in her portrayal of Lady Sara Ashley.  I almost thought Keira Knightley could have taken the role. But then I remembered how somewhat annoying she is, so I think the best actress for this role would have been somewhere in between Keira Knightley and Nicole Kidman, someone like Kate Winslet, perhaps.

Anyway, I still think it was a good film. Just maybe not one I’d recommend spending the extra cash for the theatre. Just wait until the DVD release.

Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamtress

I knew I’d like this film from the moment I picked it up in the foreign film section at Blockbuster. If you’re like me, you’d like it just because of it’s cute little title. And I’ve had this slight facination with anything Chinese lately. Maybe it was the Olympics that did that for me.

I noticed on the back of the DVD cover that the story is based on the novel of the same name by Dai Sijie, published in 2000. I had never heard of the book, but now that I’ve watched the film, I think the book could be even better. Nevertheless, the film version is charming.

The story chronicles two young Chinese men in the beginning stages of China’s cultural revolution in the early 70s. They meet and fall in love with a young Chinese girl who they only refer to as ‘the little seamstress.’ They come across some banned books from the Western world, and read them to the little seamtress, but they don’t realize how much this new knowledge will effect her and the way she sees her life.

My favorite aspect of the movie is how in love these three Chinese youth are with classic western literature and culture. And the Chinese landscape shown through out the film is breathtaking.

If you don’t enjoy having to read subtitles while watching a movie, this might not be the movie for you. But otherwise, I think you’ll like it.

‘House Bunny’ isn’t a dust bunny, don’t sweep away

I would have normally written off a movie like THE HOUSE BUNNY, even though it’s produced by Adam Sandler’s production company, Happy Madison, and from the cutesy writers who brought us Legally Blonde. I guess I’m just not initially attracted to many comedic or seemingly shallow films. But it’s actually really good and funny. And you should go see it or rent it when it comes out on DVD.

MARTIAN CHILD – story from Mars?

No, it’s not. Not far-fetched. Not “out there.” It’s a tale from the heart. And of the heart.

Of how to love a child (or anyone) who doesn’t “fit in.” Of identity – who you think you are, who others want you to be. Of a strange little boy who thinks he’s from Mars and a man who adopts him.

John Cusack plays David Gordan, a science fiction novelist and widower. He adopts Dennis, an orphan who, in the beginning of the film, isn’t seen since he hides in a box, protecting himself from the sun, which he doesn’t like since he is a Martian sent to earth on mission. Gordan, with his imaginative mind as a writer, finds ways to connect with Dennis, and the story chronicles their time together.

I found Cusack a superb actor for the part, and it was nice to see real life brother and sister John and Joan Cusack play the part on the big screen, too. Bobby Coleman, who plays, Dennis, has a ton of potential as an actor, and I give him kudos for playing a socially rejected kid so convincingly.

The film isn’t a “must see,” but it’s by no means a waste. You might shed a tear, but I wouldn’t call that a bad thing.

More than Stardust – Yes, 5 Stars for sure!

Having never read Neil Gaiman’s young adult fantasy novel, Stardust, this review of the film adaptation will have nothing to do with how the movie compared to the book itself. However, I felt that seeing the movie created the same sort of feeling you get from reading a book of its nature: enchantment.

Being of a child-like disposition myself, in the area of perpetually pretending to be the heroine in any story, Stardust made me not only adore Yvaine, the fallen star personified by a woman played by Claire Danes, but also made me want to see myself as a star, too, who, in the past, used to watch the affairs of mankind from high above in the night sky and has now landed on earth to participate in an adventure all her own – and to find love.

It is the movie’s depiction of the power and pursuit of love that I fully agree with. In Yvaine’s monologue halfway through the film, she says that out of all the things she watched mankind do as a star in the sky, it was the way men loved that kept her watching. In fact, she more than watched love. She desired it. And I found that to be totally relevant to anyone sitting in the theatre last night, which allows me to give the film a major plus and a recommendation to honestly anyone.

Concerning Claire Danes, who played the witty, somewhat naive, but delightful Yvaine, scored high marks in my book for her excellent English accent and her ability to become the human form of a star that everyone wanted – 2 prince brothers needed her to determine who would be king since their father died, 3 witches (of which the leader, Lamia, was played by Michelle Pfeiffer) needed her heart to remain young forever, and poor shopboy, Tristan, needed her to prove his love to his Victoria. Though Tristan and Yvaine’s destined journey together changed everything.

Possibly my favorite character, other than Yvaine, of course, is Captain Shakespeare, played by Robert De Niro. As the captain of a flying, lightening catching ship, he holds a reputation of being fierce and bold, but in secret, he’s a flamboyant, sensitive girly man who has a closet full of fashionable clothes and accessories. His character is a humorous juxtaposition of two personalities in one person – the one that is his true self and the one in which he feels he has to be. Through Captain Shakespeare’s meeting of Tristan and Yvaine, she teaches them both, in subtle, star-like manner, that being yourself is more important than trying to be anyone else, for that is when you truly shine.

And shining brings me to the climax of the film, when Yvaine uses her star power against the evil witch Lamia. It is this moment in the film when all the dramatic, fantastical elements are in motion – the picture with its brilliant colors, the musical score loud and inspiring. This is the moment that you’ve been waiting for, and I believe it to have been well-pleasing.

So much so that after my husband and I drove away from the theatre, we found a place where we could star gaze and hope that the stars were gazing back at us.