sinnick

Mozart Piano Concertos: Vol 4 (link)

I bought this on iTunes recently. I have volumes 2 and 3, but for some reason I never bought 4. I'm not sure why. Maybe I didn't have the money at the time. I don't recommend volume 1, as Mozart's early piano concertos aren't too interesting - they are all just variations on other composer's works. He had composed the first four concertos by the time he was ten, so perhaps it's not too surprising that they're nothing special. You can get all four volumes as a box set on Amazon for ~$100 which might be cheaper in the long run, though.

Anyway, this is Alfred Brendel and Neville Marriner playing the 22nd through to the 27th, and though it may seem expensive, it is an amazing recording. I admit I don't have huge experience listening to different pianists - I tend to just find a recording that I like and I don't really bother with listening to other versions - but I've listened to other pianists on YouTube, and Alfred Brendel is always better. He is just so damn good that I seem to always enjoy him. I've read many articles which say that he is still the greatest pianist alive. And I guess because it is The Academy of St. Martin in the Fields, the quality of the sound is top notch.

Body of Lies

This was the Leonardo Di Caprio and Russell Crowe anti-terrorism vehicle. And I have to say, this is the film that made me think "I am done with Ridley Scott". The man can craft a beautiful mis-en-scene, but when it comes to narrative he sucks. The last film of his I can truly say I enjoyed was Matchstick Men, and before that it was White Squall. And then Blade Runner. Those films were made a looooong time ago. Perhaps it's just the writers he works with, but I don't think so. This could have been a good film, but he bungled the pacing and suspense.

The film is nothing like what the trailers depict. I was expecting some sort of thriller involving two CIA agents going up against each other. It isn't that. Leo plays some sort of undefined counter-terrorism agent stationed in the middle east, and Russell Crowe is his boss back in the states. Leo is trying to catch an Osama Bin Laden type character, and Crowe basically just barks instructions at him on a cellphone.

My big problem with the movie is that the plot has no momentum to it. It seems like a series of disconnected events, with no well-defined goal. Characters are acted and portrayed as though they have hidden motivations, when they never do. The casting makes it difficult to tell many minor characters apart - which wouldn't be important except that Leo's character bases his decisions on what those minor characters do.

Russell Crowe plays a truly obnoxious american - he obviously sank his teeth into overplaying the character as a stereotypical rah-rah warhawk. I think the role was miscast. It should have been a character actor, not a movie star. Putting Crowe in the role directs too much attention to it, and derails your attention from Leo, who plays the protagonist. Leo, on the other hand, is good as usual, but not given much to do. He was better in The Departed, which admittedly was a much juicier role. But I think the problem is that Ridley Scott is just not very good with actors.

You know what's an enjoyable little comedy? Orange County. It might seem like it's a standard teenaged movie with the usual slew of lame dick and fart jokes but it's not. It's formulaic in a good way, and there is at least one terrific scene in this movie and depending on your taste maybe more. The comedy is kind of British in the way it piles escalating embarassment and bad luck onto its main character, but there is something about seeing Jack Black in nothing but tighty-whities that just pierces through all logic straight to your funny bone. Jack Black is best when in a supporting role, I find, as he is here. And it's got some great bit roles...even Chevy Chase. Check it out.

Spoilers!

We saw the new Bond movie on the weekend. A bunch of my co-workers did too. Here's what I overheard one of them saying about the Bond Girl:

"I like how Bond Girls in the new movies aren't just there to be taken care of. I mean in this one, she holds her own."

She does, although I would say that she does it with a face that has been smudged oh-so-prettily with dirt, and though she parachutes out of an exploding plane, she does it while wearing a black cocktail dress:



Hey, I'm just making a point here. Do I look like I'm complaining?

The movie itself is pretty good, although despite having the exact same writing team it's not as good as Casino Royale. It's good in the sense that it doesn't exist outside the chronology; it actively references Casino Royale, which is great because it means that it develops Bond's character. Contrast this with any of the Pierce Brosnan Bond movies...which can honestly be watched in any order and it doesn't matter because Bond never grows or changes.

Unfortunately, I don't think Daniel Craig or Marc Forster really understood the character development the writers were going for, because the emotion Bond registers doesn't often match his dialogue. I still appreciated it, but Craig plays it a little too taciturn, if that's possible.

The action sequences are numerous, and range from awesome to fair. There's probably one too many chases (car and boat), but the sequence where Bond is fighting a dude hand-to-hand in an Italian construction site is amazing.

The girl is beautiful. See above. And she can act. There's another girl as well named "Strawberry Fields" who is, you guessed it, a redhead. She can't act.

There is a nice 21st-century homage to Goldfinger as well. You'll know it when you see it.

In all, I would say that though there is some decent intrigue and spycraft (which is interestingly used more by the fine folks at MI-6 than by Bond himself), it felt more like the standard Bond-as-action-movie that we received in the nineties. I mean it didn't have a ridiculous sequence like Bond driving his invisible car across a glacier while trying to escape from cars with hull-mounted-machineguns, jetskis and a giant laser from space ... but I would have appreciated more of the Poker-Game-intrigue of the previous film all the same.

I've been meaning to post a review of this movie for weeks now, but I just haven't been able to find the time.

Fortunately in the meantime, I ran across a review of the film which perfectly sums up my thoughts. And this time it's not Roger Ebert or David Edelstein. It's a critic who I rarely agree with, Nick Schager at Slant Magazine, who writes the following:

( Read more... )

That sums it up pretty succinctly, doesn't it? It would be fine if the film were billing itself as a comedy, rather than a documentary. But as he says ... disinenuous. And the lack of any real theologians should show you the film's true colours. It wants to ridicule, not reveal.

Was it funny? Sure. But my problem is that I've seen it all before, and far too frequently. Visit any atheist internet forum for a while, and you'll see it too. But zinging idiots who don't think very hard about their religion doesn't really get you anywhere. It doesn't further the discussion, and it doesn't broaden your mind. It doesn't help. Not me, at least.

I give it a 4/10, for the laughs.

A bunch of movies I've watched recently, both at the theater, and on TV.

Tropic Thunder: 4/10
Robert Downey is good, but if you've seen Alec Baldwin doing the same thing on 30 Rock (the episode guest starring Carrie Fisher), you'll know how small an acheivement it is to act like a black stereotype. The 4 is because there are less than 4 laughs in the movie.

Burn After Reading: 7/10
Sort of a comedy of errors, but not really the Coen's best work. Brad Pitt is a ham, and never really in character. Others are good though, especially John Malkovich. Best line: "I have a drinking problem?. Bob, you're a fucking mormon! We all have drinking problems compared to you!"

Bulworth: 5/10
The first time Warren Beaty "tells is like it is", it's funny. The next twenty times, it's not. When he starts to rap, it's embarassing. It's supposed to be embarassing within the film, but watching it, it's also embarassing on a meta level, Know what I mean?

Wait Until Dark: 7/10
This was probably a fine thriller in it's day, but it's very dated now. Audrey Hepburn is a little too hysterical, and the "scares" aren't really all that scary. But it's clever. I'd like to see an updated version of this. Alan Arkin is great in a rare villain role.

The Producers: 6/10
This was the 1968 version. The Funniest Movie of All time? I don't think so. Again, this has become hopelessly dated. "Springtime For Hitler" no longer has the kind of shock effect that it did back then. You can understand why someone would want to make a musical based on this movie, because every performance is pitched to the back of the room. I appreciated the manic energy (and seeing them succeed with it makes you realize how badly Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick fail), but unfortunately, it's just not that funny anymore.

Maverick: 8/10
This was a re-watch for me, but I love this movie. Apparently it is one of Mel Gibson's biggest flops? I think it's great. It's funny, it's breezy, it's got great cameos and plot twists. When it premiered, Graham Greene was fresh off his academy award nomination for Dances with Wolves, and actually got second-level billing, before Alfred Molina. He has one of the best scenes in the film. And if you think Jodie Foster is a strange choice to play a dainty southern belle, give her a chance; in some ways, this is one of the best performances of her career (for being able to make you forget that it's her).

Mean Girls: 7/10
Nicola hadn't seen this. Believe it or not, it's actually good. What else can I say? Lizzy Caplan has gone on to become a star because of this movie, and it's just...well...funny. My favourite character is "Kevin G", who hands out his business card: "Mathematics Enthusiast / Bad-ass M.C." Tim Meadows is terrific in it also.

These are the AFI's top 100 movies. Here's what you do:
- Bold those that you think belong on the list
- Italicize those that you think don't belong on the list
- Leave those you haven't seen unmarked

1 Citizen Kane
2 Casablanca
3 The Godfather
4 Gone with the Wind
5 Lawrence of Arabia
6 The Wizard of Oz
7 The Graduate
8 On the Waterfront
9 Schindler's List
10 Singin' in the Rain
11 It's a Wonderful Life
12 Sunset Boulevard
13 The Bridge on the River Kwai
14 Some Like It Hot
15 Star Wars
16 All About Eve
17 The African Queen
18 Psycho
19 Chinatown
20 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
21 The Grapes of Wrath
22 2001: A Space Odyssey
23 The Maltese Falcon
24 Raging Bull
25 E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
26 Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
27 Bonnie and Clyde
28 Apocalypse Now
29 Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
30 The Treasure of the Sierra Madre
31 Annie Hall
32 The Godfather Part II
33 High Noon
34 To Kill a Mockingbird
35 It Happened One Night
36 Midnight Cowboy
37 The Best Years of Our Lives
38 Double Indemnity
39 Doctor Zhivago
40 North by Northwest
41 West Side Story
42 Rear Window
43 King Kong
44 The Birth of a Nation
45 A Streetcar Named Desire
46 A Clockwork Orange
47 Taxi Driver
48 Jaws
49 Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs
50 Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid
51 The Philadelphia Story
52 From Here to Eternity
53 Amadeus
54 All Quiet on the Western Front
55 The Sound of Music
56 M*A*S*H
57 The Third Man
58 Fantasia
59 Rebel Without a Cause
60 Raiders of the Lost Ark
61 Vertigo
62 Tootsie
63 Stagecoach
64 Close Encounters of the Third Kind
65 The Silence of the Lambs
66 Network
67 The Manchurian Candidate
68 An American in Paris
69 Shane
70 The French Connection
71 Forrest Gump
72 Ben-Hur
73 Wuthering Heights
74 The Gold Rush
75 Dances with Wolves
76 City Lights
77 American Graffiti
78 Rocky
79 The Deer Hunter
80 The Wild Bunch
81 Modern Times
82 Giant
83 Platoon
84 Fargo
85 Duck Soup
86 Mutiny on the Bounty
87 Frankenstein
88 Easy Rider
89 Patton
90 The Jazz Singer
91 My Fair Lady
92 A Place in the Sun
93 The Apartment
94 Goodfellas
95 Pulp Fiction
96 The Searchers
97 Bringing Up Baby
98 Unforgiven
99 Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
100 Yankee Doodle Dandy

I'm surprised nobody is mentioning Aaron Eckhardt's performance in The Dark Knight as Harvey Dent. He has just as much screen time as either Batman or the Joker, and he's better than both of them. The role could have been written better, but it was acted superbly. Heath Ledger is one-note, and that note is a caricature, and Christian Bale has nothing but grunts and one-liners.

I give the film a 6. It can't quite find that balance between dark drama and melodrama that a good Batman movie needs. The first one had it, but this one tries to push into "serious drama" and in doing so it goes too far. You can't have serious drama when the guy is riding around in the batmobile, even if it does look like a tank. The comic books understand this - especially the books which Christopher Nolan is drawing inspiration from (Year One and The Dark Knight Returns).

The plot hangs together fine, but I wish more character development had been saved for Batman. Bale is probably on my top five list of best actors of this generation, but I think he must have realized early on that there was nothing for him to do. He seems checked out.

As for the Joker, it's the same scenery-chewing we saw in the first Tim Burton movie, only tweaked towards psychological thriller instead of camp. Personally, I've never really cared much for the Joker as a villain. There's nothing to him. He has no well-defined origin, no powers, no explanation for how he is able to pull off such elaborate crimes. His personality changes depending on the writer. He exists purely to be a very obvious dramatic foil for Batman - chaos vs. order, insane vs sane, etc. But he never moves past that point, and he doesn't in this movie either. He's watchable, but from a narrative point of view the character is a dead zone. In twenty years, no one has been able to improve on Alan Moore's portrayal of the relationship between Batman and The Joker. Twenty Years. Let's please be done with him.

By the way, I saw a trailer for Watchmen at the movies. Over a year before it comes out, but I'll admit it, I got excited.

Re-watching The Silence of the Lambs, it becomes obvious just how much better it is than any of the other Hannibal Lecter films. Red Dragon is probably the second-best, just by virtue of having the same writer. But "Silence" is in a class of it's own. It's another movie which I would classify as "perfect", along with a small set of others. It does everything it sets out to do. There is not a single wasted scene. The writing, the casting, the staging, the performances are ALL focused in support of the same theme. Perfect.

I could write a whole essay deconstructing this film. I might, one day.

For now, I'll say this. No crime-thriller in history has ever done a better job of portraying a female protagonist, and that's because the film understands what it means to be a woman in a man's world. Next time you watch it, pay attention to the subtext of how Jodie Foster's character is constantly situated as the victim in many scenes, and is forced to be exhaustingly brave and strong in these situations. Even in scenes where her character is, theoretically, "safe" - you are never allowed to feel completely relaxed.

In almost every scene of the film, Foster is surrounded by men who either objectify her, resent her, or threaten her. For example, look at the parallels between the first scene where she visits Dr. Lecter and has to walk down the gauntlet of serial killers before reaching his final cell, and the scene where she is left alone in a little room with a bunch of small-town cops. In both scenes, she feels physically intimidated. Her struggle is to remain psychologically strong in these situations. In fact, I submit to you that one of the reasons why her relationship with Dr. Lecter is so interesting is because he never threatens her physically. Only psychologically. (there are many other ways in which their relationship is interetesting that I won't go into).

Buffalo Bill's character plays into this theme as well. He murders women, yet wishes to become one. There is something so wrong about that - that elevates him above a normal movie murderer, makes him much more dangerous to women in particular. His large, physical presence and deep voice just add to the sense of wrong. In the final scene, where Jodie Foster (a petite woman) is alone in the dark, apparently audiences were so scared for her character that they were shouting out to her on screen. This would not have happened if we did not already have the pent-up tension that had been building for her character throughout the film.

As part of an effort to check out some of David Cronenberg's earlier work, I watched "Dead Ringers" last night.

( Read more... )

Definitely worth seeing.

We watched Apocalypto the other day.

( Spoilers )

Nicola and I saw Juno last night. She loved it; I merely enjoyed it. One sentence review: it's good-hearted, quirky, light entertainment, with characters who grow on you and great acting.

Now. I have several other things to say, and there will be spoilers.

( Juno Review )

So all in all, I do feel that Juno is worth watching, and you should see it. It's similar, though not totally the same, as another movie about disenfranchised teen girls from a few years ago, "Ghost World", which is probably the superior film. But "Juno" has more mass appeal, and you'll probably enjoy it more if you want some decent catharsis :).

I saw a strange movie on TMN today that I had never heard of before. The movie is called Perfume: The Story of a Murderer. It is extremely weird, but also extremely good. It was starring Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman, so I was surprised I had never heard of it. I certainly don't remember it hitting the theaters. But I was hooked right from the start by it's incredibly lush, rich visual look. And even after I was hooked, the story kept my interest.

It's about a boy named Jean-Baptiste Grenouille, who lives in 18th-century France. He is born with a peculiar ability: he has the world's greatest sense of smell. He can smell a frog underwater from a mile away. One day, he catches the scent of a young peasant girl walking in the market and he becomes obsessed. He follows her...

I don't want to give anything away, but eventually he becomes an apprentice to a master perfumer. Presumeably to learn how to make perfume. But Grenouille has a secret ambition; he wants to learn how to capture the scent of human beings.

The movie is very dark, very creepy, but also incredibly cool. It follows its setup right through to a surprising and awesome climax. And it's quite amazing the way you watch, fascinated as this young man, who is definitely not a good guy (in fact, the movie definitely plays with his lack of humanity) goes through his plan - you don't want him to continue, but you are also too curious to look away. I definitely wanted to know what would happen if he managed to acheive his goal. I wasn't disappointed.

Definitely recommended, if you like off-beat, dark fantasy stories. mr_hand, I think you'd enjoy it.

I saw "Eragon" yesterday on TV.

It's bad.

Stunningly bad.

And I only watched the first half hour.

Hard to believe that such a terrible movie could be made, after the success of Lord of the Rings (ie: with such a high bar to shoot for). Good for the kid, for writing his book and getting it published, and then getting it made into a film and a video game. He's laughing all the way to the bank. I don't actually know whether the book is bad or not because I haven't read it, but from the first half-hour of film, I can't imagine it being good. The plot is completely recycled from every fantasy cliche you've ever heard. That alone wouldn't bother me if they could at least have made it believable or had good dialog. But no.

One of the first lines of the movie is uttered by the bad guy (John Malkovich, who should NOT play this kind of role) is: "I suffer without my stone. Do not prolong my suffering."

Sigh.

They even had a voice over. A bad one, that added nothing. God, even Star Wars didn't try to squeeze in a voice over.

I don't understand how they were able to get so many big name actors: John Malkovich, Rachel Weisz, Robert Carlyle, Djimon Hounsou. And Jeremy Irons. Yes...Jeremy Irons. He plays Obi Wan Kenobe...er..."Brom".

The movie might have been a lot better if they had had a half-decent actor playing the lead. But the one they got was terrible. A mugging, mincing amateur.

Luc Besson wrote "The Fifth Element" when he was a teenager. It's not what I'd call high culture, but it's fun and original. It at least proves that teenagers are capable of producing works which aren't totally derivative.

But perhaps I should have watched the whole thing. Only then would I know for sure whether it is truly as bad as Dungeons and Dragons was.

"Knocked Up" is good ... but it's not that good. It's not what all of the critics are trying to make it into. It's a perfect example of "overpraise" syndrome: the kind of movie comedy that film critics are so relieved is good, they make it seem more than it is.

When we walked out of it, the first thing Nicola said to me was: "That was written by men, wasn't it?" Yes. "I could tell." How? "Well, everything was from the Man's point of view. All of the jokes, all of the fears. The woman was basically the straight person in a comedy sketch, and her fears weren't really explored too much."

I don't completely agree - I thought the female's POV was explored somewhat. But then, I'm a man. And I must admit, not as much as the male's, and comparatively speaking, she was fairly one-dimensional. Well-performed by Katherine Heigl, but one-dimensional.

Sometimes I think film critics want to love a movie so much that they overanalyze it. I've seen reviews that have lauded this as the best comedy in ten years, that it encourages thoughts of roe-vs.-wade, that it is a "romantic comedy that is unfraid to face human suffering dead on". Whatever signs your check, guys.

For me, things were kind of breezy and entertaining, but ultimately forgettable. The stoner jokes run out of steam pretty fast, though the running gag about a guy's beard was pretty funny. And if you've seen one funny delivery-room scene, you've seen them all. Seth Rogen is a natural though, and it was surprising how different his character is here than it was in The 40-Year-Old Virgin - a lot dimmer and sweeter. Paul Rudd is reliable for the most part (he usually is), but he and Rogen have one absolutely ridiculous scene in Vegas which was just not funny. Just because the character is on drugs doesn't make him funny.

All in all, I wouldn't believe the hype. But it's an okay diversion. This is about as good as comedy gets in film these days, proving just how hard it is to sustain over a 2 hour movie.

Reading some movie reviews, apparently in the new "The Devil Wears Prada" film, Anne Hathaway plays a character who gets hired at a fashion magazine, but then is mocked because she is ugly, uncool and has no fashion sense.

Of course, then she shows them all up by developing fashion sense and revealing that...ho!...she was beautiful all along.

Now, I may be wrong that this is the plot of the movie - I haven't seen it, and that's all I've read about it. But assuming it is the case, it prompted the following thoughts:

Isn't it amazing the way hollywood can continue making these movies? I say that without sarcasm. What I find amazing is the strange paradox that allows people to scoff at the idea that Anne Hathaway could be considered "ugly", while at the same time allowing it past their suspension of disbelief.

There are literally hundreds of movies which feature an actress who is supposed to be considered ugly or uncool, but who in actual fact is more beautiful than most anyone on earth. Who, if she looked that way in the real world, would be mobbed by men daily, and whose personality would have developed much differently due to the way her looks cause her to be treated. So beautiful, in fact, that anyone you ask will tell you that not for one minute did they believe that she could be considered ugly by anyone, and it was ridiculous for the movie to even try. Yet they still go to, enjoy, and believe these movies.

I think that somehow, when we watch a movie, our sympathy for a character is somehow disconnected from the visual package. I think our desire for stories is so strong that we're willing to put ourselves in the place of any actress, no matter what she looks like, as long as she behaves as though she thinks she's ugly. We absorb her behaviour intuitively - because behaviour matters more than appearance. At least in terms of developing sympathy for a character.

The ironic thing is that physical beauty makes a character more sympathetic too - we tend to like people who are good looking. But somehow, the two concepts don't cancel each other out. A character can be both (A) a lonely, unpopular underdog and (B) incredibly beautiful, and we feel sympathy for the character, yet we don't care or mind that it's almost impossible for someone to be both (A) and (B) in the real world.

It's interesting, from a character development point of view :).

Some thoughts on ( Crash )

Nicola saw more movies than I did this year! Twenty-five more movies that I did. She likes to see a movie herself before making up her mind about it, whereas I'm much more likely to dismiss something if I think it looks bad. I've seen six of the movies on her list (2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10) and those I saw, I liked. So really, our tastes aren't so different are they? I've included the directors on films that weren't on my list:

10. The Constant Gardener

9. The Interpreter (Sidney Pollack)

8. Two for the Money (D.J. Caruso)

7. Lord of War (Andrew Niccol)

6. Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Doug Liman)

5. In Her Shoes (Curtis Hanson)

4. Cinderella Man

3. Crash (Paul Haggis)

2. Brokeback Mountain

1. Walk the Line (James Mangold)

The Award for Worst Movie Of The Year That I Saw goes to "Stealth", which Nicola roped me into watching one night. See my journal rant here if you want to know why I hated it so much, I can't bear to go into it here.