I've been MIA for a bit, as sometimes life really does get in the way, even for the most ridiculously committed hobby bloggers. Never fear: all is well, and life's drama should remain on the screen for a little while.
I was pulled out of my reverie of overwhelm today, however, by a Tufts student's stream-of-consciousness rhapsody on an actress that has elicited from me alternating respect and head-scratching over the years: Kirsten Dunst. Ms. Dunst is a good actress, and is at her best when her character is feisty, and a little unpredictable. Playing tweens and teens in Interview with the Vampire, the quasi-period Marie Antoinette and the unfathomably enjoyable Bring It On, her overwhelming personality and perkiness have served her well. But now that she's been tackling portrayals of full-grown women for several years, she still has a few tics that smack too much of precociousness, and are often cloying for no character-driven reason. Those tics worked in Cameron Crowe's Elizabethtown, and were balanced by a champion's laser focus in Wimbledon. She has managed to transform herself more fully in excellent dramatic turns such as Mona Lisa Smile and Melancholia, which is one of the most profoundly beautiful films I've ever seen. But the glimmers of cuteness can be distracting in otherwise compelling roles such as Eden in Upside Down (a film with it's own issues), or the pitiable Katie in All Good Things. Both of these are good films, for which she served up commendable performances, but we're never able to forget who we're watching.
Enough Dunstian analysis -- suffice it to say that I'm a fan, in spite of myself. What I was drawn into earlier today was a frustrating post that showed little or no preparation and research, and didn't seem to have a purpose of its own. It may have been a class assignment, or perhaps it was an extemporaneous musing. I contributed what I hope was a polite comment, and was careful to include the encouragement we all need. For me, no piece is perfect, and my writing is always a work in progress. This hapless young man certainly wasn't expecting feedback from the likes of me, and probably felt safe writing in the shelter of his college blog.
But while I feel confident that I've avoided ripping him to shreds, my ever-guilty self wonders: is it necessary or even useful to enforce standards of fact under such circumstances? If we must blog, don't we have a responsibility to get the facts right, or is posing the argument good enough on its own? For the record, I do believe that responsibility exists, or we're just filling the world with vanity and misinformation. But really, why should I care if a college freshman's hyperbole gets away from him on a blog that I just happen to have tripped over in a spontaneous search?
I'd love to hear from readers, if you're inclined to discuss such cerebral ponderings. Do facts matter? Must opinions always be framed in context and backed by at least some historical understanding, or have I made a mountain out of a molehill? Are there no editors or advisors at Tufts? When is it better to let stream-of-consciousness be what it is? Because blogs live such a long time, shouldn't there be some basic standard of quality? Or is that idea just elitism run amok?
Random thoughts on streaming movies and TV, seasoned with big opinions. Enby Gilbert is a passionate consumer of artful entertainment. She doesn't always get it "right", but appreciates the work and drive that it takes to get our shows and films to the screen. Based in Southern California, living and working with industry pros makes this passion a cheerleader's reality. Go team, go!
Friday, November 18, 2016
Thursday, September 22, 2016
Ode to the great and powerful Oz (aka Frank)
![]() |
Frank Oz |
Yes, I wax rhapsodic. But few directors have achieved such a consistent oeuvre, a body of work that is so varied and yet carries a distinct signature. Chances are, you've seen at least a couple, and haven't realized that their auteur is also one of the original Henson troupe. (For those who are wondering, no, he apparently does not direct on the set in the voice of either Yoda or Miss Piggy. We're not sure about Grover -- stay tuned for confirmation. ;-) But take a look at IMDB's full list here, and take a gander at my personal top five to get you started. We have the makings of an incredible movie marathon here...
Top 5 Favorite Movies Directed by Frank Oz
1. Death at a Funeral
One of the most perfect films around. We're talking about the 2007 original here, made in Oz's native England, and with an ensemble cast who all seem to have been born to their roles. Coming from the romantic lead in Joe Wright's Pride and Prejudice, Matthew MacFadyen is marvelous as the slightly bumbling, beleaguered son who must run the funeral, face a scandal, solve one problem after another, and finally stand up to his mother, wife and brother in order to win the independent life he deserves. MacFadyen's IRL wife, Keeley Hawes, plays his spouse in the film, and the two are natural and seamless together. As the crazily grieving widow, Jane Asher is a revelation. Watch for the wonderful Andy Nyman as poor put-upon Howard, Alan Tudyk for unforgettable naked comedy with heart, and so many other roles that stand alone and together: Daisy Donovan, Ewen Bremner, Peter Vaughn, Rupert Graves, Kris Marshall, Peter Egan, Thomas Wheatley and just about everyone credited. Of this spectacular cast, it is only Peter Dinklage, in a role that is truly one-of-a-kind and indelibly played, who was invited to be part of Chris Rock's underwhelming and completely unnecessary remake just two and a half years later. (What was Rock thinking?)2. The Score
A standout drama in the group, the stellar cast is led by none other than Robert De Niro and Edward Norton, who both give virtuosic performances. This heist flick has plenty of twists, turns and obstacles galore, giving the grittiness a place to go, beyond any familiar formula. There are also a series of very real relationships put to the test throughout the film, sparking more investment in the people than the titular "score". It's nicely balanced, never boring, and avoids most of the usual we're-smarter-than-security formulas.3. Bowfinger and Housesitter (Tie)
Yeah, I'm cheating. But the magic of Steve Martin + Frank Oz makes it too hard to choose. These two films also share an elusive aesthetic sensibility that makes them feel somehow related, in spite of the fact that they're so remarkably different. The outright creativity of the scripts and the directing, coupled with the ongoing lying and on-their-feet thinking exhibited by the characters in both films, puts both casts' considerable gifts in the spotlight, and both come out shining. They're both tightly wound, funny as hell, and just this side of ludicrous. They work because you almost believe the capers would work, and the result is magical.4. What About Bob?
Bill Murray is at his best in this film, as the bundle of neuroses who follows his newfound psychiatrist on his family's vacation, cluelessly and systematically ruining their lives. But as Bob's journey into sanity and a functional life is gleeful and fun to watch, it is Richard Dreyfuss, slowly unraveling and eventually going stark raving mad, who makes this film riveting and unforgettable, and Oz's stamp is all over the film. Most directors would dive into the humor and thrash around in it until there was nothing left but a big, sophomoric puddle of nonsense. Not him. The film maintains that same unreal believability throughout, making Bob's actions seem almost reasonable. We end up caring about these people, who remain human amidst the chaos. This is one of the hallmarks of Oz's work: the enduring humanity in the face of ridiculousness. The result is exhilarating.5. In & Out
This underrated film was widely panned when it was first released in 1997, and its broad humor garnered criticism for contributing to gay stereotypes. But there are those who stood by it, and a closer look shows that this is not gay satire, but a biting illustration of what "regular" people did to deal with gay issues at that time. The cast is exceptional, with Kevin Kline in the lead and Tom Selleck stealing nearly every scene he's in. The film showcases early work by cinema masters as well as young actors who are now established stalwarts: Debbie Reynolds and Wilford Brimley are so good as Howard's parents, full of charm and anxiety and genuine affection. Watch for Lauren Ambrose, Alexandra Holden and Sean Hatosy, who shows particular shading in his struggle to accept his beloved teacher all over again. Joan Cusack brings her signature brand of crazy, and looks absolutely beautiful, and Matt Dillon is funnier than he usually allows himself to be. Only Shalom Harlow wantonly overplays her hand. The real plot is in watching an entire town rethink what they believed to be true about themselves, best expressed in the wonderful scene when five old biddies are sitting around confessing secrets to make Howard's mother feel better: "I hated The Bridges of Madison County..." And of course, the group rally at the end, an updated version of "I am Spartacus", is priceless. Be sure to stay through the end, as the final credits roll over shots that wrap up quite a few subplots.Thursday, September 15, 2016
This tech diatribe's real power lies in silence
2014's Men Women & Children is one of those films that didn't do well due to ineffective marketing: apparently many casual observers immediately thought "comedy!", yet while Adam Sandler is the first on the cast list, this is decidedly part of his serious oeuvre, not the side that dwells in wackiness and sophomoric nonsense. If you lean toward more somber films, don't let Sandler's reputation throw you. He's actually very good in three dimensions, ala Punch-Drunk Love or Spanglish, and this could be an acceptable amuse bouche to his better work. Even better, it's not all about him -- he by no means carries the ensemble, but is part of the team, and the rest of the cast is extraordinary together, offering many reasons to see this movie.
So MW&C is no comedy, but more along the lines of The Spectacular Now and A Birder's Guide to Everything, films of the same trend that feature talented teen actors, serious topics and a big helping of familial angst. There has been a long spate of these films over the last decade, giving young actors better opportunities to hone their craft and add quality credits to their reels and resumes. But this film, while also seriously flawed, is in some ways a cut above its contemporaries, due largely to an impressive array of dazzling performances and to a series of smart choices (presumably) by director Jason Reitman. The result is a cohesive journey that challenges the senses, as well as our concepts of ethics, morality, connectedness and more simply, the right thing to do. Here's the trailer:
Jennifer Garner, not always a favorite of mine, is quite effective here: tragic and a little creepy, as the mother who so fears for her beautiful teenage daughter that she obsessively tracks and guards her progeny online, on mobile, as well as IRL. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Judy Greer, an erstwhile starlet turned ambitious stage mom, inadvertently (but not entirely guilelessly) guiding her sexy 15-year-old cheerleader daughter down a dangerous cyberpath that seems to lead to stardom.
Sandler and Rosemarie Dewitt (stunning as ever) are a married couple as completely naive about their mutual malaise as they are about their son's porn consumption. While they attempt to feel alive again by different yet surprisingly similar means, a seemingly typical jock dad (played by the wonderful Dean Norris) is strong and conflicted as he and his son (Ansel Elgort) cope with the departure of his wife for a seemingly blissful new life in California. Their pain is tangible, as are Norris' heartbreaking efforts to hide it. Beautiful performances all.
Other stories dwell in the mix, but aren't as prominent, exploring (rather lightly) anorexia, peer pressure, and all sorts of sexual issues. These include some nice moments from a cast of well-selected actors: notably Elena Kampouris as a young girl with an eating disorder, JK Simmons as her father, and Phil LaMarr, who is genuinely committed to helping Elgort's character through a difficult time. While it would have been nice to see LaMarr's character get an actual name in the credits, it's heartening to see "Shrink" portrayed in such a positive light, as school counselors are essential to some students' survival, and all too often maligned onscreen for no real reason.
While the film has low points (as they all do), one of Reitman's remarkable strengths here is in the score, or in many spots, the lack of one. The way he uses silence and camera work instead of music makes the moving pieced-together soundtrack even more effective. This contrast mirrors the daily realities of sound in an ever more tuneful world, where the complete absence of sound can be startling, and it is those crystalline moments when we see most clearly into our own souls.
So MW&C is no comedy, but more along the lines of The Spectacular Now and A Birder's Guide to Everything, films of the same trend that feature talented teen actors, serious topics and a big helping of familial angst. There has been a long spate of these films over the last decade, giving young actors better opportunities to hone their craft and add quality credits to their reels and resumes. But this film, while also seriously flawed, is in some ways a cut above its contemporaries, due largely to an impressive array of dazzling performances and to a series of smart choices (presumably) by director Jason Reitman. The result is a cohesive journey that challenges the senses, as well as our concepts of ethics, morality, connectedness and more simply, the right thing to do. Here's the trailer:
Jennifer Garner, not always a favorite of mine, is quite effective here: tragic and a little creepy, as the mother who so fears for her beautiful teenage daughter that she obsessively tracks and guards her progeny online, on mobile, as well as IRL. On the opposite side of the spectrum is Judy Greer, an erstwhile starlet turned ambitious stage mom, inadvertently (but not entirely guilelessly) guiding her sexy 15-year-old cheerleader daughter down a dangerous cyberpath that seems to lead to stardom.
Sandler and Rosemarie Dewitt (stunning as ever) are a married couple as completely naive about their mutual malaise as they are about their son's porn consumption. While they attempt to feel alive again by different yet surprisingly similar means, a seemingly typical jock dad (played by the wonderful Dean Norris) is strong and conflicted as he and his son (Ansel Elgort) cope with the departure of his wife for a seemingly blissful new life in California. Their pain is tangible, as are Norris' heartbreaking efforts to hide it. Beautiful performances all.
Other stories dwell in the mix, but aren't as prominent, exploring (rather lightly) anorexia, peer pressure, and all sorts of sexual issues. These include some nice moments from a cast of well-selected actors: notably Elena Kampouris as a young girl with an eating disorder, JK Simmons as her father, and Phil LaMarr, who is genuinely committed to helping Elgort's character through a difficult time. While it would have been nice to see LaMarr's character get an actual name in the credits, it's heartening to see "Shrink" portrayed in such a positive light, as school counselors are essential to some students' survival, and all too often maligned onscreen for no real reason.
While the film has low points (as they all do), one of Reitman's remarkable strengths here is in the score, or in many spots, the lack of one. The way he uses silence and camera work instead of music makes the moving pieced-together soundtrack even more effective. This contrast mirrors the daily realities of sound in an ever more tuneful world, where the complete absence of sound can be startling, and it is those crystalline moments when we see most clearly into our own souls.
Saturday, September 10, 2016
Ode to Tilda: A Swintonian challenge for fall
Tilda Swinton has had one of the most fascinating careers in the business -- there's absolutely nothing average about her. After watching Snowpiercer recently, I was so reminded and inspired by her awesomeness that I've decided to learn more about her diverse body of work. First, a little personal Swinton history:
Since I first became aware of her with Orlando in 1992 (part of my unabashed years of art house skulking), I unconsciously watch for her, and am always delighted to see her in any role she takes on. Her uncommon beauty is indelible, and most of her films take full advantage, from Conceiving Ada to the Narnia films to The Grand Budapest Hotel. Even in Michael Clayton, where she plays a relatively normal human rather than an angel or mythical queen, her astonishing pallor, too often mistaken for fragility, turns on those who underestimate such a bitch.
Her interviews reveal, in no uncertain terms, equally astonishing intelligence, and a commitment to character that pays off big in her portrayals. Perfectly capable of serene loveliness on the red carpet and the catwalk, she is fearless when acting, and seems to have no problem "going ugly", a fear which holds so many other beautiful actresses back. I have long believed that this is why so many hideous roles seem like award "gimmes", as we tend to see a gorgeous woman transforming herself into her own physical antithesis (e.g. Charlize Theron in Monster) simultaneously so alarming and so mesmerizing that we naturally assume that she must be a better actress than anyone else that year. It's no surprise that this doesn't seem to hold equally true for men -- perhaps we expect them to be monsters underneath the pretty? But I digress.
So clearly there's great depth here, and like me, you probably haven't worked your way through Swinton's entire body of work. Therefore, I hereby challenge myself to see as many Tilda Swinton movies as I can get my hands on this fall. I'll resist the titles I've already enjoyed*, but by the end of 2016, I want to at least have seen the following (except for the first title, listed in no particular order):
Since I first became aware of her with Orlando in 1992 (part of my unabashed years of art house skulking), I unconsciously watch for her, and am always delighted to see her in any role she takes on. Her uncommon beauty is indelible, and most of her films take full advantage, from Conceiving Ada to the Narnia films to The Grand Budapest Hotel. Even in Michael Clayton, where she plays a relatively normal human rather than an angel or mythical queen, her astonishing pallor, too often mistaken for fragility, turns on those who underestimate such a bitch.
Her interviews reveal, in no uncertain terms, equally astonishing intelligence, and a commitment to character that pays off big in her portrayals. Perfectly capable of serene loveliness on the red carpet and the catwalk, she is fearless when acting, and seems to have no problem "going ugly", a fear which holds so many other beautiful actresses back. I have long believed that this is why so many hideous roles seem like award "gimmes", as we tend to see a gorgeous woman transforming herself into her own physical antithesis (e.g. Charlize Theron in Monster) simultaneously so alarming and so mesmerizing that we naturally assume that she must be a better actress than anyone else that year. It's no surprise that this doesn't seem to hold equally true for men -- perhaps we expect them to be monsters underneath the pretty? But I digress.
So clearly there's great depth here, and like me, you probably haven't worked your way through Swinton's entire body of work. Therefore, I hereby challenge myself to see as many Tilda Swinton movies as I can get my hands on this fall. I'll resist the titles I've already enjoyed*, but by the end of 2016, I want to at least have seen the following (except for the first title, listed in no particular order):
- Doctor Strange (opening November 4)
- Love Is the Devil: Study for a Portrait of Francis Bacon
- The Protagonists
- Possible Worlds
- Teknolust
- We Need to Talk About Kevin
- The Deep End
- Julia
- A Bigger Splash
- Only Lovers Left Alive
- I am Love
- Trainwreck (if I must)
That's about one a week, so that should keep me busy. Wish me well in tracking them all down, and stay tuned for random notes!
*To avoid accusations of bias or neglect, these are the movies from her list that I've already seen over the years, listed here in chronological order of release:
- Aria
- Orlando
- Wittgenstein
- Female Perversions
- Vanilla Sky
- Adaptation
- Thumbsucker
- Constantine
- Broken Flowers
- The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
- Burn After Reading
- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
- Moonrise Kingdom
- Snowpiercer
- The Grand Budapest Hotel
- Hail, Caesar!
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
Shocking confession: Finding my own inner 'Gossip Girl'
I've been working on a project that will take a couple of months to realize, and it involves a lot of busywork -- hours of mindless data entry, migrating data and formatting a new system. It will all be worth it, as it will revolutionize the business I work for. But working from home, this kind of work tends to go far more quickly with a little company.
So to my own bewilderment, I found myself working through Gossip Girl on Netflix. I never watched the show when it was new, and wasn't really interested. But when vapid entertainment can possibly increase productivity, I figured a couple of episodes wouldn't rob my brain of too many IQ points.
But Gossip Girl, while certainly not either great art or even great television, is, at the very least, quite surprising.
The show is alarmingly addictive, with characters more fully realized than expected, and even my feeble inner fashionista is dazzled by the costuming. This is one very stylish pageant, sporting even of-the-moment directors, with several episodes helmed by erstwhile Brat Packer Andrew McCarthy.
Before I go on about the attributes which have unexpectedly positive, let's get this straight: I will not be raving on this page about the so-called talents of Blake Lively, who plays Serena, the main character. She's beautiful, and warm, and it's clear that she's no dummy. But her acting is stiff and duo-chromatic (alternating sunny yellow and lethargic blue). And while she had charm in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the buzz is that The Shallows is worthwhile, The Age of Adaline couldn't even be saved by the the likes of modern legend Harrison Ford, or even the very hunky Michiel Huisman. Blrrrrgh... (And now I'm consciously avoiding a dive into the horrors of The Green Lantern. That disaster couldn't possibly have been her fault.)
But other actors on this show have done a creditable job with difficult scenes, lending depth to characters that could have been wafer-thin. Pretty boy Chace Crawford is better than expected, Connor Paolo's dramatic skills show promise beyond mere likability, and mostly one-note Leighton Meester has her moments of pathos. Kelly Rutherford is an elegant mama bear with considerable subtext. But there are two actors who, on their own and in ensemble work, repeatedly make this series worth a look:
Zuzanna Szadkowski, as Blair's maid, Dorota, is (hands-down!) the best part of the show. As the seasons ensued, the producers seem to have realized the treasure they had in their midst, as they start giving her more to do in later episodes. She's funny, she's wise, she's irresistible -- very much like her doppelganger, the other McCarthy (starts with M!). Pay attention, H-wood: we need to see more of this woman.
But the award for Most Riveting starts with three little words, eleven letters: "I'm Chuck Bass." English actor Ed Westwick is more than just husky voice, perma-sneer and swagger. He's handsome, but other than the jawline that could cut glass, not in a conventional way. His character is the reigning devil of the Upper East, but he has a big heart, a wounded soul and the real relationships Chuck develops with Lily, Eva, Eric and even his dog, Monkey, show a far greater capacity for love and respect than we're led to expect. Rarely does a TV character, even one as maligned and downtrodden as Chuck, show the realities of real depression and conflict so convincingly. Westwick has had little chance to show this kind of range elsewhere: ABC's disastrous Wicked City, in spite of its period fascination and rather gimmicky "edge", seems like a dumbed-down, homicidal version of the same role -- the worst of Chuck, but without the soul, wounded or otherwise. Other roles have been largely in the same Bassian vein, e.g. Margin Call and J. Edgar: named roles that would work equally well as "Guy Who Looks Good in Suits". There are likely more watchable examples, and we'll be waiting for other offerings that show off his skills, perchance his portrayal of Tybalt in the 2013 Julian Fellowes-penned adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. There's also the hope that Snatch, the new series currently in production and slated for next year, will take hold and give us something juicy to sink our teeth into. With Rupert Grint and Dougray Scott also attached, there may be very good things to come.
So to my own bewilderment, I found myself working through Gossip Girl on Netflix. I never watched the show when it was new, and wasn't really interested. But when vapid entertainment can possibly increase productivity, I figured a couple of episodes wouldn't rob my brain of too many IQ points.
But Gossip Girl, while certainly not either great art or even great television, is, at the very least, quite surprising.
The show is alarmingly addictive, with characters more fully realized than expected, and even my feeble inner fashionista is dazzled by the costuming. This is one very stylish pageant, sporting even of-the-moment directors, with several episodes helmed by erstwhile Brat Packer Andrew McCarthy.
Before I go on about the attributes which have unexpectedly positive, let's get this straight: I will not be raving on this page about the so-called talents of Blake Lively, who plays Serena, the main character. She's beautiful, and warm, and it's clear that she's no dummy. But her acting is stiff and duo-chromatic (alternating sunny yellow and lethargic blue). And while she had charm in The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and the buzz is that The Shallows is worthwhile, The Age of Adaline couldn't even be saved by the the likes of modern legend Harrison Ford, or even the very hunky Michiel Huisman. Blrrrrgh... (And now I'm consciously avoiding a dive into the horrors of The Green Lantern. That disaster couldn't possibly have been her fault.)
But other actors on this show have done a creditable job with difficult scenes, lending depth to characters that could have been wafer-thin. Pretty boy Chace Crawford is better than expected, Connor Paolo's dramatic skills show promise beyond mere likability, and mostly one-note Leighton Meester has her moments of pathos. Kelly Rutherford is an elegant mama bear with considerable subtext. But there are two actors who, on their own and in ensemble work, repeatedly make this series worth a look:
Zuzanna Szadkowski, as Blair's maid, Dorota, is (hands-down!) the best part of the show. As the seasons ensued, the producers seem to have realized the treasure they had in their midst, as they start giving her more to do in later episodes. She's funny, she's wise, she's irresistible -- very much like her doppelganger, the other McCarthy (starts with M!). Pay attention, H-wood: we need to see more of this woman.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Musical moments in film
Those of us who love films tend to also be more than aware of film scores. Music is the language of the film's soul, and often becomes a character of its own. A blog post came across my desk today from a respected classical blogger in Southern California -- Timothy Mangan.
Mangan knows his topic, and dove into the film world today with this brief post:
Thanks for the nudge into a great film moment, Mr. Mangan. Hopefully we'll see more of this from you?
Mangan knows his topic, and dove into the film world today with this brief post:
Great moments in film music: ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ (The Duel)
Thanks for the nudge into a great film moment, Mr. Mangan. Hopefully we'll see more of this from you?
Tuesday, June 28, 2016
Snowpiercer: Finally watching it three years later
And so, I've had Snowpiercer on my Netflix list for ages, and after finally sitting down to watch it today, I'm still on the fence. This is a major achievement for the filmmakers, as the world they have created and the post-apocalyptic society that unfolds as the film goes on is fascinating, terrifying, and almost hypnotic in its detail. But in the end, the pacing is uneven, making the film seem like a three-hour slog (when it's actually just over two hours in length). The characters are strangely flat, while the world they live in is not. And while so many of the performances are exceptional, the overall result is frustrating. But let's start with the good stuff:
Tilda Swinton is one of my personal favorites, and here she is eerily believable as Mason, a power-hungry bitch crazed with greed, bloodlust, power, and blind faith in a distant, invisible Wilford. Shivers galore, with or without the teeth.
Chris Evans gets to show some chops: it's so nice to see him stretch beyond the two-dimensional limits of simple bravery and persistence. The scenes that ring true are quite laudable. I would love to get into ridiculous detail about the artist, the food, the fish, the red letters, the drugs, the train babies, the aquarium...
But first, let's offer a few specific shout-outs:
- Alison Pill -- vapid belief, eye-fluttering ecstasy while playing the organ. Clear intent holding a gun with one hand and her swollen belly with the other. She was an astonishing talent as a very young woman (do see Pieces of April), and she just keeps getting better.
- Jamie Bell, as Edgar, excellent from beginning to end (as usual). Every moment rings true.
- Octavia Spencer is always a wonder: passionate, quirky, full of life and truth. Here she is courageous, tragic and beautiful, whether she is fighting for her child or caring for others
- Emma Levie as Claude, the yellow bitch. Ruthless, almost alien, unpredictable, with a voice that sounds remarkably robotic, reminiscent of Siri?
- Ed Harris, with a strangely deep and rather artificial voice. The final twist, suggesting that Gilliam was a part of the Reich...
The film redeems itself by giving him a devastating monologue as he smokes one of the world's last cigarettes, and tells a tale that fills in a few gaps in the story and makes horrifying sense of the society that has been built. The evil genius Wilford fills in the rest later, with plot twist after plot twist, and a keener use of logical justification than I would have anticipated: for a second there, he was almost eerily persuasive.
There are plenty of things that don't make sense, and were likely explained in the graphic novel: there are two many supply issues that shouldn't have been possible; Wilford complains about the noise, yet his abode in the engine car is eerily quiet; and why were the people in the fire pit car wearing fur coats?
But in spite of these head-scratchers (and I will definitely watch it another time or two to pick up a few more details), this persistently bleak drama is riveting and indelible.
Sunday, June 12, 2016
4 Roku-driven cures for "there's nothing on"
Even with literally millions of options, there are days when browsing through lists of movies and TV shows just doesn't do it. That lethargy doesn't have to be, however, if you're maximizing the features on your streaming device.
I have two Rokus -- a 2 and a 3 -- and both have kept me quite happy. I've been cable-free for more than four years, and life is good. Now that additional channels are available through standalone subscriptions such as HBONow and CBS All Access, as well as the plethora of add-ons (Showtime, STARZ, etc.) that can be tacked onto an Amazon Prime subscription, we not only have access to more titles, but we have more control over them, as well. So when you want to sit down and watch something that really interests you, don't settle for whatever glides through the screen. Try one of these techniques that may be eluding you:
Saving a rental: This is a trick that surprisingly few people know about. With some channels (notably Amazon and VUDU), once you enter your PIN and rent a title, you don't have to watch it right away: just be sure to click "Watch Later" after you purchase. Don't start watching until you're ready. You'll have 30 days to start your rental, and you can put it on hold for those nights when you want to watch something you're really excited about. Once you start watching, then the rental clock starts ticking. Individual policies may vary about multi-day rentals, so if you have a 7-day rental and want to make full use of it, be sure to start watching it at least 23 days after you set it up, as the rental period might not exceed the 30-day window. Check your terms of service or contact the channel's customer service reps if you're not sure of their approach: one timeline probably takes precedence over the over.
Those "Customers Also Watched" and "You Might Also Like" lists can actually be extraordinarily useful, revealing titles you may never find otherwise. Amazon tends to have one row reserved for this, based on the last title you watched. But you can also access these recommendations from most title pages: click on a title that you already like, then click down to "Trailer, IMDb & More..." (that verbiage may vary if no trailer is available, for instance). Most channels have options like this, but they'll go by different names: be sure to look around and see what kind of recommendations and guidance they have available.
Today, for instance, Amazon's STARZ interface shows 87 titles in the "Comedy Movies" row, including a John Wayne classic and the iconic urban offering Boyz n' the Hood, both of which stand out like sore digits next to the likes of The Wedding Ringer and The Spy Who Shagged Me. Similarly, "Western Movies" boasts The Ghost and the Darkness, the Val Kilmer/Michael Keaton film about a Brit going to Africa in the late 19th century. "Drama Movies" includes '90s teen formula Drive Me Crazy, frothy romcom Never Been Kissed and 2010 baseball romp Fever Pitch (all three of which are limited to drama of the angsty variety), as well as Emma Roberts' more recent Wild Child, which sports a description that wraps up thusly: "No cell phones, no designer clothes...no way!". This list somehow also includes Beethoven, aka in my house as "Charles Grodin vs. the Pooch", and all of these examples prove that the companies offering streaming titles need to both screen and monitor their probably desperately underpaid data entry folks more carefully. Seriously, folks.


I have two Rokus -- a 2 and a 3 -- and both have kept me quite happy. I've been cable-free for more than four years, and life is good. Now that additional channels are available through standalone subscriptions such as HBONow and CBS All Access, as well as the plethora of add-ons (Showtime, STARZ, etc.) that can be tacked onto an Amazon Prime subscription, we not only have access to more titles, but we have more control over them, as well. So when you want to sit down and watch something that really interests you, don't settle for whatever glides through the screen. Try one of these techniques that may be eluding you:
1. Keep a pen-and-paper wish list
Sometimes there's no substitute for simple and low-tech, so don't let your watchlist be the only resource to finding something you're interested in. Again, it may lead you to settle for the things that are promoted and more easily accessible. Writing down titles where you can get to them regardless of what's available can be faster than "following" them on your Roku or adding them to each channel's queue. Then use Roku search to see where it's available. That's the search option from your Roku home screen, that searches everything they have, including free, rentable and purchase options. It'll save you a lot of time, and it's surprising how many times things will come up that are already available on one of your channels, but that haven't shown up in the category rows. This happened recently with "History Boys", which is available through Amazon's STARZ add-on, but which hadn't appeared in any browsing. Score!2. Rent and save
Especially on Amazon, some movies will be offered in unannounced "flash sales" for as low as $.99. This is a great reason to add newly released or hard-to-find movies to your watchlist, even if you're not interested in paying premium rental or purchase prices. Go to your watchlist occasionally and click on a movie. Then use the left and right buttons on your clickwheel to scroll through the movie display pages, one by one. I've found truly great deals on rentals and even purchases that have been quietly discounted, and grabbed them in the moment. Then when I'm really ready to give the film my undivided attention, I have one or two things in reserve, on the cheap. Keeping an eye out is especially useful now that Amazon, for instance, has eliminated their "Special Deals" row, which was never all that special, but at least offered some guidance. Now we're on our own!Saving a rental: This is a trick that surprisingly few people know about. With some channels (notably Amazon and VUDU), once you enter your PIN and rent a title, you don't have to watch it right away: just be sure to click "Watch Later" after you purchase. Don't start watching until you're ready. You'll have 30 days to start your rental, and you can put it on hold for those nights when you want to watch something you're really excited about. Once you start watching, then the rental clock starts ticking. Individual policies may vary about multi-day rentals, so if you have a 7-day rental and want to make full use of it, be sure to start watching it at least 23 days after you set it up, as the rental period might not exceed the 30-day window. Check your terms of service or contact the channel's customer service reps if you're not sure of their approach: one timeline probably takes precedence over the over.
3. Play "Similarity Roulette"
Those "Customers Also Watched" and "You Might Also Like" lists can actually be extraordinarily useful, revealing titles you may never find otherwise. Amazon tends to have one row reserved for this, based on the last title you watched. But you can also access these recommendations from most title pages: click on a title that you already like, then click down to "Trailer, IMDb & More..." (that verbiage may vary if no trailer is available, for instance). Most channels have options like this, but they'll go by different names: be sure to look around and see what kind of recommendations and guidance they have available.4. Try the opposite category
If you like comedies, and don't see anything you're interested in in the row of comedy titles displayed "for your convenience" on your channel, remember that these groupings are created largely to sell specific titles, and there are likely many, many more in their library at any given time. Moreover, streaming librarians are sometimes laughably misguided about the nature of many of their titles, and films are often tagged for either multiple categories or are just plain mismarked, resulting in misfiles that can leave you scratching your head or even laughing out loud. Many films boast cross-genre complexity and legitimately fall into more than one category, but many a gem has been found in some nether corner of the streaming universe for reasons truly unknown, and it's often worth a little click adventure to find things that should live elsewhere.
Side note
If you haven't seen the 1997 Colin Firth Fever Pitch that the Farrellys remade, it's a treasure: all around a better, more subtle, film, and more faithful to the Nick Hornby novel it adapts. Same name, and proof that sometimes we should just leave the Brits well enough alone. See also Chris Rock's unnecessary remake of the nearly perfect 2007 Death at a Funeral. Click on the images to the right to check out the DVDs of both originals. (I may eventually rant on this topic in another post. You've been warned.)
The Lesson
Don't trust the categories, and be sure to use the search tools beyond the readily-accessible browsing setup. Most people are fairly lazy (at least in their entertainment decision-making), and streaming companies are counting on that. You can miss out on great stuff, and no one should be hampered by the sales agendas of our streaming companies' distribution agreements. Put your tech to work, do your own searching, and be your own boss. There's always good stuff out there, no matter what you're into.Saturday, April 30, 2016
Nit-picking at Amazon's interface
I'm getting spoiled -- enough so that small annoyances in a user interface stay with me. Perhaps it's the obsessive need to figure out the issues with my own websites, or perhaps it's just a feeling of consumer indignation, that I'm not getting the service I deserve. But this little thing drives me nuts:
I recently signed up for Starz as an add-on to Amazon Video. It's not a bad deal, with lots of movies on demand and a good selection that includes a lot of old favorites. Plenty of romantic comedies (my soft spot), where Netflix and Amazon themselves seem to be lagging in that area.
But in order to find a movie on Starz, I either have to search for the title I want, or skim through rows and rows of movies. This is the usual sitch with Roku channels, so not the end of the world. But once I watch a film, I can't back up to the page I was looking at. The whole system refreshes, reloading Starz and requiring me to scroll through all over again. There's no "Continue Watching" area that really works, so I'm constantly looking around for a vague inclination, e.g. "I know I saw something right before I starting watching this..."
Of course, this is not earth-shattering. It's not even maddening. But it would be so good if Amazon would pay more attention to this sort of thing, and stop messing with the usual features, such as burying the Watchlist, making search less effective, and generally manipulating what we see so that we watch the Prime titles that make them the most money.
I love being a cord-cutter. But sometimes the lack of control is a bitch. Just a little rant for the day.
I recently signed up for Starz as an add-on to Amazon Video. It's not a bad deal, with lots of movies on demand and a good selection that includes a lot of old favorites. Plenty of romantic comedies (my soft spot), where Netflix and Amazon themselves seem to be lagging in that area.
But in order to find a movie on Starz, I either have to search for the title I want, or skim through rows and rows of movies. This is the usual sitch with Roku channels, so not the end of the world. But once I watch a film, I can't back up to the page I was looking at. The whole system refreshes, reloading Starz and requiring me to scroll through all over again. There's no "Continue Watching" area that really works, so I'm constantly looking around for a vague inclination, e.g. "I know I saw something right before I starting watching this..."
Of course, this is not earth-shattering. It's not even maddening. But it would be so good if Amazon would pay more attention to this sort of thing, and stop messing with the usual features, such as burying the Watchlist, making search less effective, and generally manipulating what we see so that we watch the Prime titles that make them the most money.
I love being a cord-cutter. But sometimes the lack of control is a bitch. Just a little rant for the day.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
A (Very) Good Year in Provence
Sir Ridley Scott is most often identified with titles like the Alien series, Blade Runner, The Martian and on the smaller screen, A Good Wife and most recently The Man in the High Castle. As thoughtful and character-driven as his thrillers may be, he is known neither for comedy nor for sentiment. These things are not normally attached to the name Russell Crowe either, but after a long working relationship, the two embarked on an unusual project in 2006 that has become rather a cult hit in the land of streaming.
A Good Year is a film adaptation of the same-named novel by Peter Mayle. Mayle started as an advertising maven in the UK, wrote several sex ed books (including What's Happening to Me?, one of the titles presented to me by a collection of overly helpful relatives in my own pubescent years), and has since made a solid career of his literary travelogues about being an ex-pat living in the Luberon region of Provence, and the many colorful and truly hilarious characters and adventures he and his wife have met there. Mayle's earlier books, A Year in Provence and Encore Provence emerged in the late 1980s and early '90s to a warm reception, international fame and the sorry result that this once quiet and remote region of southern France has since (even according to Mayle's own description) grown full of foreign landowners, hordes of tourists and all the traffic and changes that come with such an influx. But c'est la vie. At least we get to read about the paradise that used to be.
After several "real life" tomes, Mayle has written more novels in recent years, with mixed results. This book, originally published in 2001, is a good read, if a bit far-fetched, and the film did an admirable job of capturing the best bits and presenting them in a most charming and re-watchable romp.
The premise seems time-honored (a scoundrel reforms), but with several twists: Max, a hardened corporate jackass living and working in London, finds out that a beloved but estranged Uncle Henry has died and left him the vineyard and house in Provence where Max used to spend happy summers. With trouble brewing at work, he takes the opportunity to pop southward to sell the estate and consider his options. The wine produced by the estate is actually terrible, but there is a mysterious label, Le Coin Perdu (the lost coin), that is a legendary collector's item, and keeps popping into the story. As one of the film's characters says, "Un petit mystery, n'est ce pas?" There are inheritance quandaries, squabbles with the locals, and there is romance... And in the end, Max learns to appreciate Provence for what he'd never understood before. He may still be a jackass, but the change of scenery has a profound effect.
Part of the reason the film succeeds is that screenwriter Marc Klein's adaptation leaves out the thrillerific bits that muddy the waters of the original novel: There are politics and secret wine auctions and the duplicitous attorney who conspires with the estate's vigneron (winemaker) and flirts with Max in order to get what she wants (in spite of the fact that she's actually a lesbian). If you like that sort of thing, do read the book. It's quite enjoyable. But after three reads of the book (because I'm sort of a Mayle junkie) and several viewings of the film, I must admit to preferring the latter. Klein and the Scott Free team have placed the focus squarely on the characters and their journeys, not their individual decisions, and by simplifying the list of players, allowed us to connect more deeply with each one.
Making Max a clever but ruthless investor, rather than a hapless advertising guy who doesn't see his downfall coming, makes him less sympathetic from the start, but makes the cinematic journey into adulthood and humanity more dramatic still. Crowe's portrayal of this insensitive but somehow redeemable bonehead is layered and sincere in all extremes -- when he is bad, he's very very bad, but once he wakes up, he's delightful. Uncle Henry is larger than life played by the legendary Albert Finney, showing his rakish flaws as clearly as his deeply lovable qualities, and elevating the flashback to an artform with the help of a tween Freddie Highmore as Young Max.
In the book, Fanny is practically a footnote, if a happy one, but the expansion of her involvement allows for the introduction of the marvelous Marion Cotillard in the movie -- one of the first times most of the world had seen her. As the scrappy and passionate vigneron, Didier Bourdon makes us all care about good wine, with grenache running through his veins and a twinkle in his eye. Max's assistant, absent from the book but played by Archie Panjabi in the film, has almost a puppeteer's hold over her employer, highlighting his immaturity but thwacking him with her acerbic wit in a way that is clearly marked with fondness, as in "yeah, he's a jerk, but he's my jerk". It's clearly the most important and realistic relationship Max has probably ever had with a woman up to that time. Panjabi is fairly unforgettable in this role, and the producers apparently didn't forget her, either -- a few years later, they put her to work as A Good Wife's Kalinda, arguably one of the best roles on a very good show.
The film also allows other small roles to be fleshed out and realized with exceptional casting: a very young Abbie Cornish as the surprise cousin; Tom Hollander steals every scene (as usual) as the delightfully hedonistic best friend; Isabelle Candelier as the quirky housekeeper; and Rafe Spall as the "aggressive little flunky" (also missing from the book). The directing, handled by Sir Ridley, is surefooted and confident through most of the film, and it's seems clear that the cast had a good time: there's a lot of nudge-nudging and somewhat hammily throwing of selves into each moment. But the over-the-top personalities make the quiet moments shimmer, and there are both outlandishness and subtlety to this film that make one wonder why we don't see more departures of this sort from a seasoned auteur who handles romantic comedy so well. Perhaps this was rare passion project? Could it be that "Rid" and I share a favorite author? Whatever the motivation, it's a well-crafted gem.
I don't want to give away too many spoilers. Just see the film. Be sure to open a good bottle of wine and let it breathe first.
A Good Year is currently on HBO Go/HBO Now (for another couple of weeks), but is also rentable from several streaming providers, including MGO, Google Play, Amazon Video, and Vudu.
Also available on DVD, and for your next staycation, don't forget the deliciously weird soundtrack.
A Good Year is a film adaptation of the same-named novel by Peter Mayle. Mayle started as an advertising maven in the UK, wrote several sex ed books (including What's Happening to Me?, one of the titles presented to me by a collection of overly helpful relatives in my own pubescent years), and has since made a solid career of his literary travelogues about being an ex-pat living in the Luberon region of Provence, and the many colorful and truly hilarious characters and adventures he and his wife have met there. Mayle's earlier books, A Year in Provence and Encore Provence emerged in the late 1980s and early '90s to a warm reception, international fame and the sorry result that this once quiet and remote region of southern France has since (even according to Mayle's own description) grown full of foreign landowners, hordes of tourists and all the traffic and changes that come with such an influx. But c'est la vie. At least we get to read about the paradise that used to be.
After several "real life" tomes, Mayle has written more novels in recent years, with mixed results. This book, originally published in 2001, is a good read, if a bit far-fetched, and the film did an admirable job of capturing the best bits and presenting them in a most charming and re-watchable romp.
The premise seems time-honored (a scoundrel reforms), but with several twists: Max, a hardened corporate jackass living and working in London, finds out that a beloved but estranged Uncle Henry has died and left him the vineyard and house in Provence where Max used to spend happy summers. With trouble brewing at work, he takes the opportunity to pop southward to sell the estate and consider his options. The wine produced by the estate is actually terrible, but there is a mysterious label, Le Coin Perdu (the lost coin), that is a legendary collector's item, and keeps popping into the story. As one of the film's characters says, "Un petit mystery, n'est ce pas?" There are inheritance quandaries, squabbles with the locals, and there is romance... And in the end, Max learns to appreciate Provence for what he'd never understood before. He may still be a jackass, but the change of scenery has a profound effect.
Part of the reason the film succeeds is that screenwriter Marc Klein's adaptation leaves out the thrillerific bits that muddy the waters of the original novel: There are politics and secret wine auctions and the duplicitous attorney who conspires with the estate's vigneron (winemaker) and flirts with Max in order to get what she wants (in spite of the fact that she's actually a lesbian). If you like that sort of thing, do read the book. It's quite enjoyable. But after three reads of the book (because I'm sort of a Mayle junkie) and several viewings of the film, I must admit to preferring the latter. Klein and the Scott Free team have placed the focus squarely on the characters and their journeys, not their individual decisions, and by simplifying the list of players, allowed us to connect more deeply with each one.
Making Max a clever but ruthless investor, rather than a hapless advertising guy who doesn't see his downfall coming, makes him less sympathetic from the start, but makes the cinematic journey into adulthood and humanity more dramatic still. Crowe's portrayal of this insensitive but somehow redeemable bonehead is layered and sincere in all extremes -- when he is bad, he's very very bad, but once he wakes up, he's delightful. Uncle Henry is larger than life played by the legendary Albert Finney, showing his rakish flaws as clearly as his deeply lovable qualities, and elevating the flashback to an artform with the help of a tween Freddie Highmore as Young Max.
In the book, Fanny is practically a footnote, if a happy one, but the expansion of her involvement allows for the introduction of the marvelous Marion Cotillard in the movie -- one of the first times most of the world had seen her. As the scrappy and passionate vigneron, Didier Bourdon makes us all care about good wine, with grenache running through his veins and a twinkle in his eye. Max's assistant, absent from the book but played by Archie Panjabi in the film, has almost a puppeteer's hold over her employer, highlighting his immaturity but thwacking him with her acerbic wit in a way that is clearly marked with fondness, as in "yeah, he's a jerk, but he's my jerk". It's clearly the most important and realistic relationship Max has probably ever had with a woman up to that time. Panjabi is fairly unforgettable in this role, and the producers apparently didn't forget her, either -- a few years later, they put her to work as A Good Wife's Kalinda, arguably one of the best roles on a very good show.
The film also allows other small roles to be fleshed out and realized with exceptional casting: a very young Abbie Cornish as the surprise cousin; Tom Hollander steals every scene (as usual) as the delightfully hedonistic best friend; Isabelle Candelier as the quirky housekeeper; and Rafe Spall as the "aggressive little flunky" (also missing from the book). The directing, handled by Sir Ridley, is surefooted and confident through most of the film, and it's seems clear that the cast had a good time: there's a lot of nudge-nudging and somewhat hammily throwing of selves into each moment. But the over-the-top personalities make the quiet moments shimmer, and there are both outlandishness and subtlety to this film that make one wonder why we don't see more departures of this sort from a seasoned auteur who handles romantic comedy so well. Perhaps this was rare passion project? Could it be that "Rid" and I share a favorite author? Whatever the motivation, it's a well-crafted gem.
I don't want to give away too many spoilers. Just see the film. Be sure to open a good bottle of wine and let it breathe first.
A Good Year is currently on HBO Go/HBO Now (for another couple of weeks), but is also rentable from several streaming providers, including MGO, Google Play, Amazon Video, and Vudu.
Also available on DVD, and for your next staycation, don't forget the deliciously weird soundtrack.
Don't forget to read the book!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)