544 – Extraordinary Measures (***)
Posted by frothy in Extraordinary Measures on August 25, 2010
Image from the Baltimore Sun
Even though it has the premise of a disease-of-the-week movie, Extraordinary Measures is both compelling – seriously – and dramatically satisfying. Harrison Ford gives one of his best (nonaction) performances in years, and even Brendan Fraser is palatable. It’s definitely a three-hankie movie, so it’s sort of a chick flick. Fellas, you should watch this at home, alone, with the curtains pulled.
John (Fraser) and Aileen (Keri Russell) Crowley have two young children with a rare disease called Pompe that damages muscle and nerve cells in the body. Both children are wheelchair bound but in generally high spirits, thanks to wonderful, supporting parents. (They have a third child who does not have the disease.)
Time is running out on the kids, though, because Pompe victims typically do not live to double-digit ages. In desperation, Crowley turns to researcher Robert Stonehill (Ford), a cranky, iconoclastic scientist who cares only about his work and, sometimes, fishing. Stonehill has a remarkable new theory for the treatment of Pompe, but he’s never tested it on anything, let alone anyone; his field is in theoretical, rather than applied, research. But the persistent Crowley wears him down, and – long story short – agrees to form a partnership with him, a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for the disease, a foundation to which moneyed people can donate funds.
What makes this particular film work isn’t that there’s a race against time or even that there are adorable kids who are basically at death’s door. No, it’s because director Tom Vaughan chooses to have Crowley’s daughter Megan (Meredith Droeger) act as the face of the disease, and she’s a charming, happy child. Her personality is so magnetic that you could easily forget she was riddled with the debilitating disease, were it not for the wheelchair.
Vaughan doesn’t waste his time playing on the audience’s sympathies in abundance. He focuses on the machinations that Crowley and Stonehill have to undergo to fund, research, and bring to market this miracle cure – actions that are either in praise or an indictment of the real-life politicking needed to get medicine to drugstores. Crowley and Stonehill form a company, which they sell for funding, and then the funders want to make more money and so are bloodless beasts (maybe not), and all the while the two Crowley kids are slowly getting a little worse.
The movie manages to be sentimental and touching without even a hint of cloying insincerity, and that’s a remarkable achievement nowadays. I mean, think about it. Even people who don’t watch a lot of movies have become jaded to storylines that we just know are trying to manipulate us one way or another. We know we’re being played, and we don’t really care, and when that manipulation is too obvious, we just turn to something else for our entertainment fix. But we’re not really being manipulated here at all. The film honestly, and not melodramatically, presents us with a real-life crisis that has distinctly and believably human element to it; without it, we may as well be discussing an Olympic hopeful’s chances at the gold after learning she has contracted vasculitis.
Ford is terrific. The man can do drama. It’s worth noting that this is the film since Return of the Jedi in which Ford was billed somewhere other than first. It’s true, he’s almost 70 years old, but the guy still has charisma to burn. Whether he’s doing a slow burn or raging at the elementally specious bureaucracy surrounding him, he is nothing short of believable. He’s so good that you forget he was Han Solo or Jack Ryan or Indiana Jones and think that, for a short while, he’s Dr. Stonehill.
Now, admittedly, this isn’t a movie for everyone. And even though it’s not overtly manipulative, it’s still a tugger of heartstrings. So be warned. It’s tough not to be affected by it, a sure sign of a well-made movie.
Even though it has the premise of a disease-of-the-week movie, Extraordinary Measures is both compelling – seriously – and dramatically satisfying. Harrison Ford gives one of his best (nonaction) performances in years, and even Brendan Fraser is palatable. It’s definitely a three-hankie movie, so it’s sort of a chick flick. Fellas, you should watch this at home, alone, with the curtains pulled.
John (Fraser) and Aileen (Keri Russell) Crowley have two young children with a rare disease called Pompe that damages muscle and nerve cells in the body. Both children are wheelchair bound but in generally high spirits, thanks to wonderful, supporting parents. (They have a third child who does not have the disease.)
Time is running out on the kids, though, because Pompe victims typically do not live to double-digit ages. In desperation, Crowley turns to researcher Robert Stonehill (Ford), a cranky, iconoclastic scientist who cares only about his work and, sometimes, fishing. Stonehill has a remarkable new theory for the treatment of Pompe, but he’s never tested it on anything, let alone anyone; his field is in theoretical, rather than applied, research. But the persistent Crowley wears him down, and – long story short – agrees to form a partnership with him, a foundation dedicated to finding a cure for the disease, a foundation to which moneyed people can donate funds.
What makes this particular film work isn’t that there’s a race against time or even that there are adorable kids who are basically at death’s door. No, it’s because director Tom Vaughan chooses to have Crowley’s daughter Megan (Meredith Droeger) act as the face of the disease, and she’s a charming, happy child. Her personality is so magnetic that you could easily forget she was riddled with the debilitating disease, were it not for the wheelchair.
Vaughan doesn’t waste his time playing on the audience’s sympathies in abundance. He focuses on the machinations that Crowley and Stonehill have to undergo to fund, research, and bring to market this miracle cure – actions that are either in praise or an indictment of the real-life politicking needed to get medicine to drugstores. Crowley and Stonehill form a company, which they sell for funding, and then the funders want to make more money and so are bloodless beasts (maybe not), and all the while the two Crowley kids are slowly getting a little worse.
The movie manages to be sentimental and touching without even a hint of cloying insincerity, and that’s a remarkable achievement nowadays. I mean, think about it. Even people who don’t watch a lot of movies have become jaded to storylines that we just know are trying to manipulate us one way or another. We know we’re being played, and we don’t really care, and when that manipulation is too obvious, we just turn to something else for our entertainment fix. But we’re not really being manipulated here at all. The film honestly, and not melodramatically, presents us with a real-life crisis that has distinctly and believably human element to it; without it, we may as well be discussing an Olympic hopeful’s chances at the gold after learning she has contracted vasculitis.
Ford is terrific. The man can do drama. It’s worth noting that this is the film since Return of the Jedi in which Ford was billed somewhere other than first. It’s true, he’s almost 70 years old, but the guy still has charisma to burn. Whether he’s doing a slow burn or raging at the elementally specious bureaucracy surrounding him, he is nothing short of believable. He’s so good that you forget he was Han Solo or Jack Ryan or Indiana Jones and think that, for a short while, he’s Dr. Stonehill.
Now, admittedly, this isn’t a movie for everyone. And even though it’s not overtly manipulative, it’s still a tugger of heartstrings. So be warned. It’s tough not to be affected by it, a sure sign of a well-made movie.
Extraordinary Measures: ***
Michael Caine and I agree
Posted by frothy in Casablanca (1942) on August 15, 2010
In February 2009, I wrote a post here called The Greatest Movie Ever Made. Since movies are so insanely subjective, there are myriad movies that could arguably hold this title. But for my money, the best of all time is 1942′s Casablanca.
And you know what? Sir Michael Caine agrees with me! (I know, he’s going out on a limb here.) See for yourself, along with four more of Caine’s favorites:
543 – Daybreakers (**)
Posted by frothy in Daybreakers on August 6, 2010
from my-cineplex.com
Daybreakers isn’t terrible, but it’s predictable amid a veritable sea of vampire movies, particularly post-apocalyptic ones. It’s strictly by the numbers and doesn’t even have the promise of strong individual performances (Sam Neill, Ethan Hawke, and Willem Dafoe) to serve as a selling point. It’s as drab and lifeless as the bloodsuckers contained therein.
It’s the future – of course – and a plague has changed most of the human race into vampires; now there’s only about 5% of the human population remaining, and the vampires – who vant to suck their blud – are getting antsy. Hawke plays a hematologist who’s been working on a replacement blood supply, something artificial that’ll have all the kick of regular human blood but that can be created without he help of humans. His boss, played by Sam Neill, understands the importance of getting a stable food supply but seems to have ulterior motives. So it’s a plot lifted right out of Blade II, which also wasn’t very good.
Things heat up when Hawke stumbles upon some humans who are on the run from the rest of the world and who – of course – desperately need use of his blood-studying skills to find a cure for vampirism. This doesn’t sit well with Neill or with Hawke’s soldier-brother, the former of whom has no intention of solving this worldwide malady and the latter of whom hunts humans for a living. You can kind of see where this is headed.
The humans are led by Dafoe and Aussie Claudia Karvan, who looks like a younger Catherine Keener (a compliment). They have the crossbows, and Dafoe has no heartbeat. Know why? Because he was a vampire and got cured! And now Hawke can try to repeat that miracle and cure all those sad, mopey vampires! It’s a win win win situation!
Brothers Michael and Peter Spierig, with their first big-budget film, aren’t able to make this journey any more memorable than similarly themed movies, such as the aforementioned Blade. There’s little mystery and intrigue, which is fine if there’s also a lot of butt kicking. But there isn’t. There’s a lot of gloom, a lot of gray covering everything, and a real sense of seedy despair; it’s as if the movie were filmed in a low-budget motel. It’s the Econo Lodge of vampire movies. There’s no real twist, and the action is so low key that you’re not distracted from how straightforward and uninspiring the plot itself is.
Daybreakers: **
The whole enchilada
Posted by frothy in Housekeeping on August 4, 2010
Some of you may be thinking, “Gee, I wonder what Dan thought of that movie with that guy in it.” You might even know the movie’s name. But then when you wander over to the website, you don’t see the movie listed. Anywhere. Maybe Dan never saw it! Is that what you’d think?
Well! If you don’t see the movie listed, it’s because there’s no full-length review of it on this site. HOWEVER, I like all of you so very, very much that I went to great, grand, awesome lengths to make sure you know precisely how much I like a specific movie.
When you visit the site – www.frothyruminations.com, bookmark it today! – at the top of the page, above the posts, you’ll see several links. Included are links to pages that contain a list of, well, everything. Everything I’ve seen, anyway.
The list is spread over five pages, and it’s alphabetical by title. Click on the appropriate link and scroll on down to find the movie.
What will you find? The title, the year of release, the MPAA’s rating, the length of the movie, and – TA DA – my own rating.
The scale is like so:
* means it’s terrible
*1/2 means it’s only mostly terrible
** means it’s pretty bad
**1/2 means it’s almost good
*** means it’s satisfying, probably entertaining
***1/2 means it rocks
**** means it’s way awesome
The Oregon Trailer
Note: I totally stole that joke and the trailer itself from Film Drunk.
542 – Nine (***1/2)
from hollywoodgo.com
If you have a yen for sumptuous, dazzling musicals with an array of show-stopping numbers, there’s nothing in Nine you won’t like. It’s well staged (no pun intended) and choreographed, and it doesn’t feel claustrophobic, as so many movies adapted from plays do.
Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a legendary film director whose most recent movies have been flops, and he’s in the middle of a crisis on his latest, titled Italia: he has no script and no idea on how to proceed.
As he struggles to keep the movie afloat – and while production begins – Guido must also juggle the affections and attentions of the various women in his life, from his mother (Sophia Loren) to his lover (Penelope Cruz) to his wife (Marion Cotillard) to his muse/leading lady (Nicole Kidman) to a reporter (Kate Hudson) to a long-ago crush (Stacey Ferguson) to his confidant (Dame Judi Dench). The plot carries us from woman to woman, one sensational musical number after the other. Director Rob Marshall, who also directed the Oscar-winning Chicago in 2002, does a magnificent job of interspersing the songs with the actual storyline.
Now, I’m really not much of a fan of musicals – really! – but there’s so much to love about this one. Each actress performs her own numbers and is so spellbinding that you’d almost think they were musically talented and not just pretty faces. Okay, granted, you wouldn’t think that anyway, not with all those Oscar winners up there. But seriously, would you believe Cruz, Kidman, or Dench could or would sing? Not I. Not I!
Cruz, who earned an Oscar nomination for her work here as the aggrieved mistress, is simply stunning, with the full-bodied passion and angst one would expect from a woman who wants especially what she cannot have. To say that Cruz is beautiful is to state the obvious, but here she is incandescent.
Oddly enough, the movie didn’t really do all that well at the box office (although it did receive several Oscar nominations), despite that tremendous cast. I think it might be because when all is said and done, one might wonder what all the singing and dancing was all about: what was the point, anyway? Essentially, it is a way for Contini to regain his creativity and get moving on his film, by examining the effect that his various relationships have had on him. If you can accept that this isn’t meant to be a linear plot like Chicago (i.e., murderess gets her due), it’s a lot easier to swallow the film itself.
And amid all of the flash and glamour of the musical numbers is another treasure of a performance from Day-Lewis, who seemingly doesn’t know how to be a bad actor. His conflicted, desperate Contini is both dislikable and vulnerable, an enigma whose multifaceted life is symbolized by his two-toned career.
Fun fact: the title refers to the nine films of Federico Fellini, who directed the immortal 8 1/2 (1963). It’s also the age of the young Contini in a flashback number.
As I mentioned, musicals aren’t really my thing, but when they’re done well, it’s hard not to acknowledge their awesomeness. And Nine is about as awesome a musical as you get. A perfect cast sells each number with gusto and sheer talent, not to mention no small amount of beauty and panache.
Nine: ***1/2
541 – The Missing Person (***)
Posted by frothy in Missing Person on July 28, 2010
from Village East Cinema
The Missing Person is, on the surface, about an alcoholic ex-cop who’s assigned to find the titular character and bring him home to his wife. But it’s much more than that; it’s a look at how the survivors of the September 11 attacks continued with their lives, post-tragedy, and it’s about man’s powers of self redemption. It’s a character study in the guise of a film noir mystery.
John Rosow, played by Michael Shannon, is contacted by a mysterious client to follow a man from Chicago to LA, find out what he’s up to, and then bring him home to New York. But Rosow’s investigation unearths more than a simple retrieval mission, and ultimately it reveals a heck of a lot about him and his past, particularly in how he has dealt with losing his wife during the 9/11 attacks.
Because, you see – and you will, early on, no spoiler here – the missing person is one of the many who simply were never heard from again after the attacks on the Twin Towers. Many of those people were (and are) presumed dead, but some may have behaved like Harold Fullmer (Frank Wood) and moved elsewhere to get on with their lives anew. Harold’s up to something, but luckily for us it’s not something nefarious (that would have been too obvious, certainly), and soon Rosow is faced with a moral quandary – should he let Harold stay where he is, or is he obligated to bring him back east?
Shannon is superb, a craggy, world-weary Johnny Law who’s been leaning on the drink for far too long. We’ve seen these oversoaked cops before, the ones who are either cold-shocked by tragedy or just numbed to everyday horrors. But below the seen-it-all surface, Rosow has plenty of issues, plenty of bad memories, and plenty of guilt.
Thus there are dovetailing plots – the apprehension of Fullmer and the redemption of Rosow. Writer Noah Buschel, who also directed, has crafted a rich, crusty mystery thriller into a pyschological study of the long-term effects of a truly horrific day in American history, particularly on individuals; in this case, one man flees his memories, while the other embraces them nightly.
I wanted to mention this movie in particular, because it’s certainly not one that most people have heard of (it’s now on DVD). It’s a quiet, subtle look at an event that was itself nothing but. It’s well written and insightful into the psyche of a survivor, and it includes a commanding performance by Shannon (nominated for an Oscar for Revolutionary Road, overshadowing both Kate Winslet and the overacting of Leonardo Dicaprio) along with strong support from Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone).
The Missing Person: ***
And then, there’s this
Speaking of Bruce Willis (he’s in The Expendables), this also looks pretty hot. A former black-ops agent has to reassemble his team to save himself.. and his team includes Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren!
Expendables trailer
I’ll admit it. I am really looking forward to seeing this. It’s refreshing to see people put their stupid egos aside so we can have a fun dang movie! Of course, some of these guys need a hit.
540 – Salt (***)
image from Rotten Tomatoes
Salt, a spy movie about a CIA agent who may or may not actually be a Soviet agent, is a heck of a lot better than others in its genre. It has a lot of pulse-quickening action, astounding stunt work, and a semiplausible plot. Oh, and someone named Angelina Jolie to do all the requisite butt-kicking.
There have been plenty of pyschological thrillers in which the protagonist is double crossed, then triple crossed, and so on until the audience quite literally has no idea who’s on what side or who’s doing what to whom – it’s sort of an entertainment by obfuscation. Sleight of hand. It’s when the director tries hard to confuse the bejeezus out of everyone, the better to disguise a thin plot and cardboard acting.
But that isn’t true here. Jolie plays Evelyn Salt, a CIA analyst who’s accused – from the get-go – of being a sleeper spy, by a Russian attempting to defect. Naturally, our gal Evelyn bolts the CIA and goes on the run. But unlike other movies, where the balance of the plot would be devoted to her finding the Real Bad Guys and Righting Wrongs and Clearing Her Name, this film keeps us guessing: Is Salt really a preprogrammed spy with the goal of assassinating the visiting Russian president? Her CIA boss (Liev Shrieber) and the head of counterintelligence (Chiwetel Ejiofor) dash off to New York to catch her, and she eludes them at every step. And all the while, we’re not sure if she’s a good guy or a bad guy, or a good guy with bad intentions, or perhaps a good guy with a shady past.
And although the ending isn’t neat and tidy, it’s also not implausible, another hallmark of run-of-the-mill spy thrillers. It’s refreshing.
Angelina Jolie has shown time and time again that she supercedes all of those preconceived ideas of pretty actresses. She’s beautiful, yes, but she’s also a very gifted actress. It’s in full evidence here, as her Salt dons numerous disguises that really do a good job of hiding her amazing looks. Lesser actresses would wilt under the pressure of, you know, actually performing as opposed to being gawked at, but Jolie flourishes. And she has some serious action-movie chops, too! Apparently, she did her own stunts, and she’s simply electrifying. It’s easy to believe that her role was originally written for a male lead – what in Hollywood isn’t? – but it’s hard to imagine many top-shelf actors doing as much with the role as Jolie does here. As with the best actors, Jolie can do a lot with the slightest bit of movement or expression. She is mesmerizing and tremendous.
She’s ably supported by Shrieber and Ejiofor, and although neither character is particularly fleshed out, neither, too, is obvious and shallow. So, good script from Kurt Wimmer.
Oh, sure, there’s a spot midway through the movie where you begin to consider the possibilities of what Salt’s up to, where the script’s headed, and you figure out what the big twist at the end is going to be. Or maybe I just got lucky. Probably the biggest obstacle that writers of psychological thrillers face is the plot corner, where they’ve made things so intricate that they can’t write themselves out of their own traps. Here, there are only a few possible outcomes, so it’s not too tough to figure out what will eventually happen – the trick is that Noyce and Wimmer make getting to that eventuality a rough, perilous journey.
All in all, Salt is the kind of movie that, say, Eagle Eye or Repo Men or State of Play or even Knight and Day wish they were. It’s expertly directed by Noyce, who also has given us Patriot Games and the overlooked Rabbit Proof Fence and features a powerful performance by Angelina Jolie. Oh, and in case there was any doubt, it’s sequel-ready.
Salt: ***
539 – Inception (**1/2)
Inception, about the business of invading dreams and stealing secrets, is overbaked, complicated, and tough to endure in spots. It’s crippled by overexplaining itself and by changing the rules it sets out for itself when convenient to the plot. Still, a strong supporting cast (behind the vapid Leonardo Dicaprio) helps considerably.
Dicaprio plays Cobb, a man whose job it is to invade people’s dreams and steal their secrets. (It stands to reason that he’s also The Very Best at this.) Cobb operates outside of the United States because of a terrible incident in his past, and he’s been looking for a way back without facing any negative consequences. A Mr. Saito (Ken Watanabe) has a job for him, with a proposal: if Cobb is successful, Saito will have his longstanding charges dropped with the proverbial one phone call. But, of course, there’s a catch: rather than having Cobb steal an idea from their victim, Saito wants him to plant one, an act known as “inception,” an act that is deemed nigh near impossible to accomplish.
Cobb assembles his team: his partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), the architect Ariadne (Ellen Page), the forger Eames (Tom Hardy), the chemist Yusuf (Dileep Rao). Their mission: enter the dream of the heir of a major corporation and plant the idea that he wants to strike out on his own rather than take over the company when his nearly dead dad kicks the bucket.
As with most Christopher Nolan movies, this one takes some careful scrutiny. It’s not that the plot is convoluted, precisely, it’s more that there’s not only a lot of things going on in rapid-fire motion, and the entire movie is set against the backdrop of an area that virtually no one knows anything about: dreams. Because of the unfamiliar territory, the filmmakers can do almost anything they want within the movie, within the dream within the movie, and within the dreams within the dream, and so on.
Nolan establishes some rules from the start, because his audience naturally would have no idea what they might be (for example, if you die in a dream, you wake up; in order to come out before the dream is up without dying, you need to fall somehow). Then, over the next couple of hours, he violates those rules a few times. In other words, the rules are X, but because of this situation in which we now find ourselves, all bets are off. It’s kind of easy to write your way out of plot predicaments when you can change the rules at any time and for any reason.
This is an issue that plagued Dicaprio’s last movie, Shutter Island, a movie that depended on the audience being able to suspend disbelief. That’s crucial here as well, but the nature of what we’re supposed to disbelieve keeps changing. It’s tough to completely respect a movie that needs to move its own goalposts.
The cast isn’t terrible, but it’s largely lost under a sea of story intracacies, wild CGI, and a lot of blaring music. This is a minor complaint, honestly, but there were multiple scenes in which characters were speaking to one another in normal tones while the movie’s soundtrack was ratcheted up to 11, thus rendering the dialog completely indecipherable. For a movie that’s so highly dependent on plot, this was irritating and really inexcusable.
But back to the cast. Both Gordon-Levitt and Page seemed out of place, in way over their heads. Gordon-Levitt’s character probably should have been played by someone more skillful, like Mark Ruffalo or James Franco; Page looked like she just wandered onto the set of another of her Comcast commercials, and she’s not yet been able to shed her Juno MacGuff persona. Page, like the rest of the cast, is game but is ultimately along for the ride, nothing more. Also on hand is Marion Cotillard as Cobb’s dead wife who appears to him in dreams as sort of a projection, and that’s where the weirdness begins; he’s defensively locked his memory of her in his subconscious, so of course she pops up everytime he goes into someone else’s dream. That can be a bit of a drag.
I’m still firmly in the camp that believes Leonardo Dicaprio often confuses earnestness with good acting. (I might be the only person in this camp, but the smores are to die for.) I know there are plenty of people who think he’s the bee’s knees when it comes to passionate performances, but I just feel like he’s stretching further than he can reach as an actor. He seems sincere here, yes, but not entirely believable in the role. For some reason, I think a more burned-out-looking actor would have been better, even Jeff Bridges – despite the age difference – because he would lend a lot of gravitas to a pretty demanding role.
As always, I was amazed and impressed by the imagination of Christopher Nolan (who also scripted), but I was largely disappointed by the movie, particularly its denouement. There’s much to see and soak in, and it’s true that overthinking the movie will lead you to really dislike it (or stare at it, mouth agape), but often it’s just too much seriousness and not enough awe and wonder.
Inception: **1/2
People Had This to Say