Whenever it is announced that Nicole Kidman is going to be starring in something, I have to brace for all the negative comments that will be made on the comments section of any website that carries those news. Most of these comments will be Botox or facial expression related. Why the hate? Is it because of all the Botox she has put into her face? Or is it because of the career boost that her relationship with Tom Cruise gave her? I guess we’ll never know, but what I do know is that she is the best actress of her generation.

No other actress of her generation has worked with as many auteurs as she has. Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut), Gus Van Sant (To Die For), Lars Von Trier (Dogville), Baz Luhrman (Moulin Rouge! and Australia), Oliver Hirschbiegel(The Invasion), Rob Marshall (Nine), George Miller (Happy Feet), Nora Ephron (Bewitched), Sydney Pollack (The Interpreter), Anthony Mighella (Cold Mountain), Stephen Daldry (The Hours), Alejandro Amenabar (The Others), Jane Campion ( Portrait of a Lady), Ron Howard (Far and Away), Joel Schumacher (Batman Forever), and Noah Baumbach (Margot at the Wedding) are some

of the directors she’s worked with. And she will soon be starring in movies directed by John Cameron Mitchell (Rabbit Hole) and Tomas Alfedson (The Danish Girl).

Yes, most people would say that those movies she starred in were the worst of their respective directors’ careers (especially Far and Away, The Invasion, and, some would say, Eyes Wide Shut), and I do hate some of them myself. However, are these failures her fault? Does her presence bring the quality of the movie down? In my opinion it is the fault of the writer, and sometimes the director, for not being able to bring quality material to the screen. In most of her movies she brings her A-game and sometimes turns into the only highlight of a piece of crap.

With that, now I’m going to analyze all the movies that I’ve seen of hers, as well as her performances. I have not seen them all, but with this you’ll see where I’m coming from about her being the best actress working today (after Meryl Streep, of course). I’ll list them and analyze them in alphabetical order, some of them I’ve not seen in a long time, but I’ll do it from memory.

-     Australia- The film is very flawed, but I love it. Here Kidman is great at giving a performance similar to those in the classic epic romances. She doesn’t pretend it is any more than that.

Batman Forever- One of the worst Batman movies, but she does what she has to do, and nothing more.

Bewitched- The concept was ambitious but it didn’t work, and Kidman didn’t have much to do. This one was one of those instances where her performance was meh.

Birth- The premise is somewhat ridiculous, but her performance, as well as good direction and a great score, makes this movie better than it should have been.

Cold Mountain- Love it, the entire cast is amazing.

Dogville- Her bravest performance yet.

Fur: An Imaginary Portrait of Diane Arbus- The movie would have been better had it been a straight biopic, but she is great as  Arbus.

The Golden Compass- Had this movie been better and the follow-ups would have been made, she would have been to His Dark Materials what Ian McKellen was to Lord of the Rings

Happy Feet- Very little role, but she does what she has to

The Hours- Crap film, good performance. She did not deserve to win the Oscar.

The Interpreter- I doubt interpreters at the UN look like her, but she makes it work.

Margot at the Wedding- Crap film, but she gives one of the best performances of it’s year.

Moulin Rouge!- Her second-best performance and one of the top-10 performances of the decade in one of the top 10 movies of the decade

To Die For- Her best performance and one of my favorite performances of all time.

The Others- Her third-best performance. There was lots of room for her to chew scenery, but she avoided that.

Practical Magic- It is mostly about Sandra Bullock, but I love her as the rebellious sister.

The Stepford Wives- A guilty pleasure of mine. Not her best performance, but it adds to the camp of the whole movie.

So, yes, she does have a lot of failures, but not performance-wise. She is one of the few actresses who are willing to take risks. First off, any actress that works with Lars Von Trier is a brave actress in my book. He just put them through so many challenges that one can’t help but feel for them. In fact, I read that Von Trier offered her the female role in Antichrist but she turned it down (if you know anything about the movie then you can guess you why). Then there are movies like Fur, Birth, and Margot at the Wedding that would have never been made or would not have gotten any attention without her.

In the end, it is up to you to decide whether she is just a poster girl for the effects of Botox, someone who got lucky by marrying Tom Cruise, or just someone annoying. However, one can’t deny that she can sometimes be important to many movies, and she likes to take risks. For this reason, she is the best actress of her generation.

Conozco a Noah Baumbach desde 2004 cuando hizo equipo con Wes Anderson en The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou y me pareció formidable la historia. Repiten equipo en Fantastic Mr. Fox este año y estoy muy ansioso de verla. Ahora bien si hubiera elegido esta peli por el director de pronto no la hubiera visto porque primero no lo conozco tanto y segundo no lo conozco tanto.

Esta peli la ví por Jack Black. Pueden actuar Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, John Turturro, Ciarán Hinds y aún así no hubiera entrado. Todos son excelentes actores, es más que reparto tan basto, pero el nombre de la peli y esta combinación de actores sólo podía ser característica de un género en particular que no me agrada tanto y es el melodrama. Pensé que con Black hubiera un chance de que fuera una tragicomedia o algo por el estilo, ya la había embrrado una vez en 2006 cuando vi The Holiday pero pues me podía dar esa oportunidad.

Mis sospechas se hicieron reales, la peli es un melodrama psicológico donde dos hermanas exorcisan sus demonios y se demuestran la una a la otra sus errores. Son las mejores amigas pero igual no son capaces de convivir. De lejos, su relación es melancólica, cálida, entrañadora y nostálgica. De cerca, son agresivas, pasivo-agresivas, bipolares y orgullosas.

No digo que sea mala, no llena mis expectativas, no me conmueve ese tipo de relaciones y situaciones. Baumbach decidió hacer una obra para ser actuada y escogió un reparto ideal. Todo está armado para resaltar las actuaciones y sus diálogos, incluso la cinematografía según ellos mismos explican (Baumbach y Harris Savides cinematógrafo de la peli) fue desarrollada en planos de una sóla toma para que al unirlos en corte de planos sencillos da una sensación incluso de un documental argumentativo. Perfecto. Llega a tal punto ese protagonismo la actuación que siento no hay un desenlace claro de la historia y más que un final abierto se deja la sensación de una obra inconclusa, a medio terminar.

Tomar la decisión de ver la peli por los actores es una acción correcta. Por mi lado, la próxima peli de Baumbach, que no sea en equipo con Anderson, me voy a dar el lujo de dejarla pasar y esperarla en TV o DVD.

Nota Personal. La aproximación y deslumbrante actuación de Nicole Kidman se ven completamente opacadas con el exceso de botox en su cara. Las escenas verdaderamente dramáticas muestran unas facciones y gestos en contra de natura perfectas para otro tipo de géneros fílmicos. Una lástima ya que una gran actriz se está perdiendo en su propia vanidad.

2007: Margot at the wedding di Noah Baumbach

Uscito direttamente in dvd questo film che può vantare un cast di gran prestigio e un regista “cult” del cinema indipendente (film presentato con successo in vari Festival tra cui quello di Toronto).

La critica lo ha molto apprezzato: “Imperativo rifiutare la versione italiana e sfruttare l’unico vantaggio dell’uscita diretta in dvd: l’accesso alla banda originale ci permette di apprezzare la migliore Kidman di sempre e una Jennifer Jason Leigh di commovente bravura” (Gli Spietati), “Con il titolo italiano che gli hanno appioppato, questo film rischia d’essere confuso e trascurato tra le tante insulse commedie di argomento matrimoniale che impestano il mercato: ma, una volta di più, sarebbe un vero peccato” (Cinemalia), “Scritta in maniera intelligente, sagace e profonda dal regista, la pellicola è una tragicommedia che analizza con verità estrema, senza infingimenti di sorta, le tormentate dinamiche di una famiglia disfunzionale” (Il Sole 24 ore), “Una pellicola non facile ma che regala sicuramente forti emozioni” (Screenweek). Giudizi che mi trovano perfettamente concorde e che rendono alquanto inquietanti e preoccupanti i misteri della distribuzione italiana.

Il matrimonio di mia sorella (come sottolineato da più parti il titolo italiano è fuorviante) richiama i film “seri” di Woody Allen o molta produzione di Ingmar Bergman per l’analisi, a volte impietosa, della famiglia e delle relazioni umane. Perfetta la mescolanza di riso e pianto. Un po’ commedia un po’ dramma esistenziale, un’opera che delinea come poche la solitudine e la difficoltà del comunicare: una accurata sincera graffiante analisi della fragilità umana.

Dialoghi taglienti, svolgimento non banale grazie a una solida sceneggiatura (scritta ottimamente dallo stesso regista, Noah Baumbach) attenta più ai dettagli che alle azioni.

L’abbondanza di finezze psicologiche, il mirabile affresco di un’umanità dissociata (quanti di noi potranno riconoscervi?), nonché la particolare fotografia non retoricamente estetizzante e la funzionale colonna sonora fanno de Il matrimonio di mia sorella un film da vedere e assaporare. Fiore all’occhiello è soprattutto l’eccezionale performance dell’intero cast: dal sottoutilizzato Ciaràn Hinds (Dick) alla sempre convincente Flora Cross (Ingrid) già ammirata in Parole d’amore, da un sempre perfetto John Turturro alla rivelazione Zane Pais (Claude), da un sorprendente e insolito Jack Black a una Jennifer Jason Leigh che non smette di stupire per il suo notevole talento e a una Nicole Kidman tornata finalmente a recitare in un ruolo degno della sua bravura.

Toccante e ironico, profondo e leggero al contempo, Il matrimonio di mia sorella coinvolge ed emoziona pur con i suoi toni pacati e quasi dimessi.

scheda

sito ufficiale

premi e riconoscimenti

Margot at the Wedding is arguably Baumbach’s best film so far that he’s directed. Preceding the likes of Rachel Getting Married by a year or so, Margot at the Wedding examines the social and familial dynamics of a relatively dysfunctional family as they approach a wedding. The disdain for this film eludes me. The common complaints seem to pertain to the characters and how allegedly unlikeable they are. While I can’t say I found Nicole Kidman’s character, Margot, to be incredibly lovable, I don’t see her as quite as rote and despicable as most seem to. Watching as her intense self-loathing alienates her loved ones was uncomfortable and emphatic, but never less than naturally executed and strangely fascinating.

Baumbach’s dialogue is terrific. The banter and the arguments are so effectively moody and clever. Each character feels fully realized and, despite the plague of insecurity and bitter resentment that is infecting each of them, they’re hardly unrelatable. What ensues throughout these arguments and reminiscence is a complex tapestry of emotions and candidness run amok, far beyond what Rachel Getting Married attempted to accomplish. Both films achieved realism with ease, but Baumbach’s screenplay is simply superior in every aspect. It’s tinged with just enough dark humor and poignancy to provide a perfect tone. I’d wager it’s one of the most underrated films of the decade.

…de ce i-a placut omului papadie margot at the wedding.

Margot (Nicole Kidman) åker tillsammans med sin tonårige son till sin syster Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh) som är i färd med att planera sitt bröllop med slackern Malcolm (Jack Black). Margot är författarinna och oerhört självupptagen. Hon kritiserar alla i sin omgivning och gör sitt bästa för att få paret att avblåsa giftermålet. Hennes eget liv är dock kaosartat vad gäller såväl män som karriär.

Ja, frågan är vilket eller vilka neuropsykiatriska funktionshinder som Margot lider av och vilka de andra i hennes omgivning lider av. Det här är ett gäng väldigt speciella individer och filmen blir en prövning för tålamodet vad gäller deras beteende och hur de interagerar med varandra. Det är stundtals plågsamt att se hur de ställer till det för sig själva och varandra. Värst är Margots psykopatiska drag som allra mest går ut över sonen som hela tiden förnedras och trycks ner. De ändå ofta lågmälda scenerna och udda dialogen kan vara roande, men antingen är jag för korkad för filmen eller så är manuset på tok för tunnt för att bära hela vägen. Sevärt men knappast riktigt bra.

Betyg: 2

The catching up with Indie films continues…….

official poster

There are times in life when you watch a movie and you just don’t know how you feel about it afterwards.  Margot at the wedding is one of those movies.  Basically the plot consist of Margot (Nicole Kidman) traveling to her sister Pauline’s (Jennifer Jason Leigh) house (their old parent’s house) for her upcoming nuptials with Malcolm (Jack Black) which immediately causes lots of tension because Margot disapproves of Malcolm, not to mention the fact that both sisters haven’t spoke to each other in months and seem to be forever trap in a sort of love/hate relationship in which neither seems strong enough to end it.  In a sick way, they need one another.  Oh how blood can bind us right?

This at least seems to provide an explanation as to why did Pauline even bother to invite Margot, but if Margot doesn’t get along with her sister all that well and she dislikes Malcolm, then why did she even showed?  Because she needed an excuse to be away from her husband, whom she’s separating from, even though he’s trying to patch things up and because she’s having an affair with one of Pauline’s neighbors.

Margot and Pauline: recent each other, can't live without one another.

Speaking of neighbors, there’s a subplot involving the next door neighbors being a bunch of strange, undesirable and just straight up a-holes/loonies, rednecks type and their demand for Pauline and Malcolm to cut a tree down which roots they claim are destroying their property, which just add more drama to a movie filled with it, but ends up not really adding anything special to it, or showing us more of the tension between the sisters, which is clearly what is supposed to be doing.  It could have done without.

I gotta say that everyone does pretty well in their roles, even Jack Black. This sort of movie is standard Jennifer Jason Leigh fare and Nicole Kidman is specially effective at being a complete insufferable, neurotic person.  Yes, her role is basically a cliche in many ways: the successful writer who uses the lives of those around her to create thinly-veiled stories/criticisms of said family and to mask her very own emotional issues to the point that she can’t help but poison everyone she’s around by always putting people down and turning people against one another just because that’s the only way she knows how to be and to deal with the fact that deep inside she hates herself and wants everyone around to suffer and be miserable as well.  The thing of course being that those around her have convinced themselves fully that they are in fact inferior and therefore in need of her so no matter what Margot does, they will always forgive her.

Jack Black playing against type, surprisingly holds his own.

Writer/director Noah Baumbach is no stranger to this sort of super dysfunctional, dislikeable family fare; his 2005 film The Squid and the Whale deal with a sour bunch just like this one, albeit more successfully.

It isn’t a bad movie, it isn’t the amazing film that so many critics praised back in 2007.  The issue at hand is that you question the motives of these characters and why they decide to stick together when they know they are better off away from each other.  If anything, it makes you feel sad for the poor kids who will grow up to be even more dysfunctional, and in the case of Noah Baumbach, write and direct thinly-veiled movies about growing up in such environment.  Grade B-

Movies about weddings usually carry an unspoken guarantee. Much like a Meryl Streep film, you know it’s going to be good. Muriel’s Wedding (1994), Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994), My Big Fat Greek Wedding (2002) and Mamma Mia (2008), were all box office sledgehammers.But Rachel Getting Married? Ugh.

Not Rachel Getting Married, some anonymous couple in Lake Louise knot-tying

Director Jonathan Demme has delivered knock-outs like Silence of the Lambs (1991), Philadelphia (1993) and The Manchurian Candidate (2004). His latest and supposedly greatest Rachel Getting Married was filmed in 33 days and opened the 65^th Venice International Film Festival.

Jenny Lumet, a juniour high drama teacher, daughter of Sidney Lumet and granddaughter of Lena Horne, wrote the screenplay. Demme loved Jenny’s “flagrant disregard for the rules of formula and lack of concern for making characters likeable in the conventional sense.” No kidding.

Anne Hathaway, who plays Kym, the troubled, just out of rehab Buchman family member, was nominated for Best Actress (the Oscar went into the proper hands of Kate Winslet for The Reader).The eponymous bride, Rachel, was handled boldly and beautifully by Rosemarie DeWitt, with more patience and grace under fire than I could swallow. When her whining whippet of a sister (Kym) comes home for the wedding, the sibling battle begins, and rightfully so. The tension between the sisters is so palpable and uncomfortable that I found myself wanting to smack Kym with at least one stinging slap across the face. Dinner parties became hunting grounds for the sisters, and the house full of captive wedding guests allows Kym ample opportunity to exercise her rehab humour and spur on yelling matches. She steals more attention from Rachel than a NFL half-time streaker.

And there is so much yelling that weekend of the wedding. It reminded me of a t-shirt I saw a guy wearing on the subway in Toronto last year: “I’m not yelling, I’m Italian!” Apparently some families yell as a way of expressing their love for each other, this is new to me.

It comes as no surprise that Rachel Getting Married sits at 86% on the Rotten Tomatoes Tomatometer. I left my seat twice to make popcorn and grab another beer (slow moving movies = faster drinking apparently). Usually I ask Wanda to hit ‘pause’ but I was secretly hoping that she would accidentally press ‘fast forward’ on the remote. One hour into the movie I asked if she wanted to stop it and watch something on the Food Network. “No, we’ve watched it this far.” And so we twitched and cringed to the bitter end, waiting for their estranged mother, Debra Winger, to possibly steal the show, waiting for the big reveal of something. Like the explanation of the emotional worms eating at dear old Kym, explaining her slap-worthy behaviour and rants.

But, that explanation didn’t fully come with acceptance until I emailed Rona Maynard, telling her that I had just watched the dreadful Rachel Getting Married. A reader on Rona’s blog “Let’s Talk” had suggested the movie on a recent posting on the theme of healing estrangements (http://www.ronamaynard.com/index.php?the-gentle-art-of-healing-an-estrangement&letters-from-rona). The reader recommended the movie as she felt it deftly handled the squirmy topic of family rifts and resolve “without being manipulative.” Rona replied almost instantly to my email.

“Hmmm…I’m the one who loved Rachel Getting Married. Saw it twice, in fact—and on the second viewing felt more compassion toward all characters, including Hathaway’s.” Rona went on to explain that sometimes a “dangerously enmeshed family avoids burningly important truths whle stepping uninvited into everyone else’s business. Kym is what family therapists call ‘the identified patient’(scapegoat).” SPOILER HERE– “They can’t bear to talk about the dead brother, so she provides a convenient distraction.”

And so, my fiery backlash at Hathaway was gently downgraded. I will have to watch the movie again with Rona’s slant on scapegoat-ism and Kym being the true victim in a movie that makes her seem like the villain.

But before that I will rent Margot at the Wedding because Nicole Kidman and Jennifer Jason Leigh exhibit sibling rivalry at its best. The wit and clever dialogue had me rooting for both sisters instead of dividing my allegiance like Rachel Getting Married.

You decide. Or, if you’ve decided, let me know if you’d watch Rachel get married again.

Trailer for Margot at the Wedding:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQobRrZhvo

Rachel Getting Married:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIvMUy8UDs

Nicole Kidman has departed from her role starring in the next, presently untitled, Woody Allen project.

She was due to star alongside Antonio Banderas, Anthony Hopkins, Josh Brolin, Naomi Watts and Freida Pinto with shooting reportedly due to commence in the summer in Allen’s most frequent new city muse, London.

Variety says nothing has yet been said as to who will replace Kidman in the role.

It seems like an interesting move for an actress who seems to be struggling somewhat to maintain any kind of box-office power. Australia was a complete flop and, prior to this, she was in the debacle that is The Golden Compass, the mean-spirited and somewhat irratating Margot at the Wedding and the truly terrible The Invasion.

Allen, on the other hand, seems in upward swing. Vicky Cristina Barcelona was his most universally liked work since Sweet and Lowdown and Whatever Works, starring Larry David and Evan Rachel Wood, looks an even stronger creation.

I suppose we’ll see if Kidman can manage to find something to suit her talents in the future, rather than continuing this stream of dreck.

The previous post about The Spirit and All That Jazz has spurred a post about the worst films I’ve ever seen.  I’m going to post 10.  At least, that’s my goal right now, at the start.  It could gain momentum and be a bit longer list.  We shall see.  They will be in no particular order, though the two already mentioned here would actually be one and two on the list, respectively.  (And, if you read the title you know I expanded to 13.  Sitting here now I can think of a few more, but I’ll stop here.  I’ll save the others for the part 2 list)

As mentioned… The Spirt was bad.  And I mean… bad.  I know, it’s supposed to be stylized.  I get that.  To me, however, it had no style at all.  Run, don’t walk, from this movie.  Spend your time doing something more worthwhile… like mowing the lawn or going to the dentist.  Anything.  Anything would be better.  Really.

This strange, I really can’t stand it, oddity of a film won 4 oscars.  Maybe it’s that I just don’t get it.  Maybe it’s me.  Maybe not.  Either way… All That Jazz was terrible.  Hard to follow.  Choppy.  Uh… just plain… strange.  No other way to put it.  Sometimes I like strange.  Sometimes strange is good.  This was/is not one of those times.

Supernova .  Completely terrible and very disappointing.  One of those times you think… man, it has good people in it.  Actors I like.  But somehow even they look bad in this movie.  Really bad.  There’s nothing much more I can say about this other than… ew.

Event Horizon.   Sam Neill.  Laurence Fishburne.  Worse than terrible.  Not only was it bad it was, to me anyway… disturbing.  Which maybe it was supposed to be.  Whatever.  I’ve seen plenty of movies that were slightly disturbing, or even a lot disturbing, and they weren’t bad.  They were disturbing, but that was OK because it was part of the story or moved it along.  This… disturbing for no damn good reason.  Creepy in a I have to take a shower now kinda way.  Avoid this film.

Max Payne.  I don’t even really know what to say about this movie.  I was excited to watch it… and then we did.  All the best parts were shown on the previews.  Now, looking back on actually watching it, I can’t even remember the movie all that much.  I just know we were like… uh… that was not good.

Chapter 27.  I thought… wow, this could be interesting.  Sadly, I was mistaken.  Not only was it not interesting, it was painfully slow.  Slow and… really slow.  We looked at each other and were like, OK, we have to turn this thing off.  I fast forwarded and watched the last two thirds of this film at high speed, slowing slightly once in awhile to keep up with what was going on.  Which took like a minute or less each time.  This thing is unbelievably shamefully sorry.  The only interesting thing about it is that Jared Leto looked transformed… kudos to him.   However, his weight gain is the only heavy thing this movie carries.  There was no substance to it.  None.  Just creepy looks and… a whole lotta nothing.   Too harsh?  I don’t think so.

Righteous Kill.  Writing… bad.  Directing… not great.  Acting… OK.  Predictability… yes.  This film, on the surface, would seem to be a winner all around… good actors, good director, etc.  But, it’s not.  And in fact, it’s silly, predictable, over the top, and just plain uninteresting.  Another film we fast forwarded through because we couldn’t take it at normal speed.  I would’ve turned it off completely, but I had to see the end to make sure the bad guy was who I knew it was after watching the first 10 minutes.  It was.  Skip this.  Even DeNiro and Pacino can’t save this terrible excuse for a movie.

Margot At The Wedding.  I hate it when I like no one in a movie.  When there doesn’t seem to be one redeeming person.  For me, this film was like that.  I didn’t enjoy a single line of it.  After watching this movie, and again, we fast forwarded through much of the end of it, I felt ucky.  Annoyed.  Like someone had robbed me of a small amount of time in my life and I was perturbed about it.  In fact, I still feel perturbed just thinking about it.

In Bruges.  It could just be me, but this movie was awful.  Again, I liked no one.  The shots, all puns intended, at humor were not funny.  Though maybe it was just my sense of humor, which this film didn’t even touch, that made me want to throw a shoe at the screen.  I don’t know.  I couldn’t believe how bad this thing was for me.  I watched and then just wanted to say what was the point of that?  There are films where it’s OK to ask that fateful question at the end… then there are films like In Bruges.

Freedomland.  I thought… good actors.  Come to think of it maybe I should stop right there to say that possibly I shouldn’t always see a movie because of the actors involved, but a girl has to have some way, some criteria for picking films to watch, and that’s one of mine.  Sue me.  But I digress… back to the movie.  It lumbered.  It was like walking uphill in water.  Slow and painful.

The Assassination of Jesse James by The Coward Robert Ford.  This movie is beautifully shot, I’ll give it that.  It’s gorgeous in fact.  However, that’s the only thing it has going for it.  Other than, alright, OK, the acting in it is also pretty good.  I just didn’t like it.  Talk about watching paint dry.  By about half way through I was like… this thing is beautiful, but c’mon already, shoot him.  Get it over with.  That, to me, is never a good sign.  One should never be thinking get it over with already while watching a movie.  Plus… could there be any longer or worse title for a movie than this?

I Heart Huckabees.  Huh?  Just plain not awesome.

Layer Cake.  To much.  Over the top.  Kinetic, not in a good way.  One of those films where you aren’t on the edge of your seat, you’ve fallen off.

I haven’t bought any DVDs in a long time, mostly because I have a majority of the films worth buying on DVD (some are worth buying, but I have seen them so many times, why bother). Also, I’ve been enlarging my library, so naturally my stack of ‘books to read’ is getting sky high.

But, since MovieStop is the best thing ever, and if you buy 3 used DVDs you get 1 for free, here is what I picked up:

‘The General‘ – Well, this one was new, but it was only $4.99. What a steal. This Buster Keaton classic should be seen by everyone.

‘Cloverfield‘ – Which was surprisingly good for $7.99.

‘Margot at the Wedding‘ – An indie favorite of mine which I have wanted for a long time but couldn’t find for under $20. $9.99.

‘The Savages‘ – I had this on my computer, but this is truly a great film. Again, one that should be seen by everyone. $9.99.

‘Gosford Park‘ – This one was for free since it was the cheapest. Not the most amazing film, but very a very interesting period piece. $5.99 (or, free).

I’ll probably write about these soon, and the new X-Men Origins when I see it.

[RACHEL GETTING MARRIED trailer here.]

The trailer link is only here as a matter of stylistic consistency but I actually recommend not clicking on the link. Or, if you do, watch the extended clip instead of the trailer. One of my pet hates is trailers that misrepresent the film they are promoting and if I had made a decision on whether to see Rachel Getting Married based purely on the trailer I would have opted for nay based on the assumption that Rachel Getting Married would be another Quirky Indie Comedy a la Juno appealing to a crowd that needs to feel alternative without leaving the safety of a generic narrative. I ended up seeing this film based on the word of mouth on the Internet and the gamble paid off. Rachel Getting Married is a joy.

Director Jonathan Demme’s name is not the sort to inspire auteur-focused excitement. In fact, Demme’s resume (The Manchurian Candidate, Beloved, The Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) suggests a bland, workmanlike approach to cinema. How refreshing then that Demme has created an American film that feels vital, engaged with the organic mess that is real life. Rachel Getting Married is the story of Kim (Anne Hathaway) who is let out of rehab to attend her sister’s wedding. Kim is coping with guilt from her drug-abusing past and is frustrated that everyone around her won’t let her leave the past behind. Rachel (Rosemary DeWitt) is worried that Kim’s presence will overshadow her special day, a dynamic that has shaped the family for too long.

However, describing the plot does a disservice to the film. Some of the film’s most special moments happen when the plot recedes into the background and the film focuses on the wedding itself. The film is shot with a constantly roving, shaky camera. If Aronofsky’s use of handheld camera in The Wrestler seemed over-deterministic, Demme’s use of handheld camera in Rachel is perfectly attuned to the little accidents that make life. In some ways this film almost feels like a documentary of a wedding: think Dave Chappelle’s Block Party meets Margot at the Wedding and you have some idea of what is happening in this film.

Speaking of music docos, there is a lot of great music in this film. In the story, both sides of the family are musical which means that there are musicians constantly in the background rehearsing or performing or just hanging around. Famous guys who pop up include Robyn Hitchcock and Tunde Adebimpe from TV on the Radio who plays the groom. Music nerds will I’m sure have an extra layer of appreciation for this film playing spot the obscure celebrity.

Anne Hathaway does great character work in the lead. It’s almost a shame that she had to make Bride Wars in the same year (it’s like Eddie Murphy starring in Norbit after receiving accolades for his turn in Dream Girls) because she does amazing character acting here. Kim is coarse, obnoxious, narcissistic and infuriating and despite this, Hathaway makes you feel empathy for her without turning her into a martyr. Also notable is the ethnic diversity of the cast: It doens’t feel contrived. It feels real. You know, the way that real life is ethnically diverse. Even apart from ethnic differences, there is such a rich tapestry of characters. If I was to make a literary comparison, I’d liken this film to Zadie Smith’s On Beauty. The film will from moment to moment just shift the camera to focus on an unexpected character sometimes even an extra and for the moment the film is theirs.

This film is by no means perfect but it does feel alive and in a year whose arthouse films all seem like the dead offspring of some screenwriter’s imagination, that’s a welcome thing.

SEE THIS WITH:

Margot at the Wedding (Noah Baumbach, 2007)

Dave Chappelle’s Block Party (Michel Gondry, 2005)

Irma Vep (Olivier Assayas, 1996)

I actually got more of a Late August, Early September vibe from Rachel at the Wedding but I can’t find a trailer for that on youtube so Assayas’ earlier film Irma Vep will have to do. Fuck, this is such a great film that you should watch it with every film anyway regardless.

Whenever I confess my distaste for Anne Hathaway, I’m forced to justify this opinion even though why she is boring is completely obvious to me. First she was in Disney movies that I never saw because I am over the age of 6; then she was charmless and infantile in The Devil Wears Prada; and then she blandly attempted some edge in the Nicole Kidman role in Jonathan Demme’s version of Margot At The Wedding. The only Anne Hathaway appearance that has ever entertained me was her performance as the real-life Adrianna to Raffaello Follieri’s Christopher.

Then came Bride Wars. No way am I seeing that movie, but I now realize something that occurs to most film critics about a week into their jobs: I don’t need to see this movie in order to explain what happens in it. The trailer and publicity photos have given me all I need to know. So, without further ado, my ad hoc review of Bride Wars (with helpful bullet points!)

• Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway were hilarious.

My god, what talent. They did everything from make cracks about major designers to make cracks about major shoe designers. I was rolling in the aisles, just like I was during the Sex and the City movie when Samantha made that joke about that guy’s dick.

• Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway acted like real best friends.

These screenwriters know that women who love each other also hate each other. If my best friend wanted to get married on the same day as me, I would be furious. I’d make her fat, ruin her tan, slip her some laxatives, and then I’d pull her hair in big cat fight. Like I, as a woman, always do when things can’t be settled with a simple compromise.

• Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway were super complicated as people.

Kate and Anne have totally great jobs that they never have to do. They are expected to know about things other than fashion, but because they’re women, they also care about how they look and what they wear. And above all else, they are definitely hilarious.

• Kate Hudson and Anne Hathaway looked bangin’.

You totally can’t tell Kate’s wearing hair extensions. And did Anne lose weight? I can’t tell anymore!

• Men were portrayed realistically.

The men in my life are irrelevant, boring, and stupid. Finally — a movie that gets it! Why aren’t there more movies and TV shows about this common fact?

• I came away from this movie wanting to get married, above all else.

A woman is just not a woman until she’s had her special day, humorous montages set to pop music and all.

One of my very favorite screenwriter-directors, Mr. Noah Baumbach (Kicking & Screaming, Mr. Jealousy, The Squid and the Whale, Margot at the Wedding), has a hilarious piece in the New Yorker at present, about a scientist and his companion lab mouse (and wine). Enjoy.

It has been one full week without a single cigarette. Go me. I’ve barely had a craving, but I haven’t really been around anyone smoking. Unless you count Tana on the phone! Being sick has helped, I’m sure.

I woke up Thursday morning with a sore throat and simply dismissed it as post nasal drip. I had strep a couple times a year as a child, so when someone says they have a sore throat and a stuffy nose I want to tell them to shove it.

The most common cause of a sore throat is post nasal drip. A key symptom to strep is an obvious lack of congestion.

I generally have a stuffy nose. It’s just how it’s always been, I have mild allergies, it’s just a part of my everyday life. So when I noticed that 1) My nose wasn’t stuffy and there was no post nasal drip and 2) My sore throat never improved I became slightly concerned.

I had my tonsils taken our just before my 16th birthday, almost exactly 8 years ago. One of my glands had become permanently enlarged and after a ton of blood work and a Hodgkin’s disease freak out, the ENT doctor ultimately decided that my tonsils we’re the problem. That they were home to the strep bacteria, were the cause of my frequent bouts of strep, and were irritating my lymph node. My tonsils are gone, but my gland is still enlarged. After a second opinion years later I learned that it’s most likely scar tissue because I’ve had strep so often. But the bright side has been that I haven’t had strep since my tonsillectomy.

Until now. I’m convinced, but since I haven’t been to my initial VA appointment, I don’t really have health coverage. So I haven’t been able to see a doctor to confirm this. I have an appointment tomorrow, just to get some blood drawn and to sit through some briefings, but I hope to find someone to order a rapid strep test and prescribe antibiotics. I can’t work if I am contagious. Which is for up to 7 days without antibiotics.

If I even have strep at all.

Which I’m sure I do.

My throat hurts.

I had drill this weekend but I left early yesterday and I felt so crappy this morning I called my squad leader and told him I wasn’t coming. I slept until noon and then I watched Mamma Mia! I ate some Jello, tomato soup and grapes and then I watched Margot at the Wedding.

Mamma Mia! was wonderful, if you can handle cheesy musicals and Meryl Streep’s less than stellar voice. I love Amanda Seyfried from Big Love and Mean Girls, but I had no idea she could sing! I guess she’s trained in classical opera. I love Meryl Streep, but some of those songs were almost painful to listen to! It was a sweet movie, I think I got choked up once or twice, but no tears. Which says a lot because I’ll cry over a Publix commercial.

Margot at the Wedding was… interesting. The acting was amazing, but the story line left a lot to be desired. When all is said and done, watching dysfunction families is not necessarily riveting. And this may sound less than intellectual but I HATE it when they don’t explain things in movies. I understand Margot and Pauline weren’t talking for an unspecified amount of time, but WHY? Was it because of something Margot wrote? Did Pauline feel like Margot was the cause of the end of her marriage? Another aspect of the movie that really… irked me, was there were several characters I was anxious to meet, and it seemed as though I would meet, but never did. Becky, Margot and Pauline’s sister, was one of them. They talked about her a lot and she was supposed to come up for the wedding, but you never meet her. Josh, Margot’s other son, was discussed a bit, but again, never met, though his brother, Claude, is one of the main characters in the movie. But I must say, the performances were wonderful. Sometimes so realistic, it was uncomfortable. It reminded me of Monster’s Ball, specifically the sex scene, how real and raw it was. I couldn’t look at the screen. It’s not a waste of time to watch, but I wouldn’t go out of my way if I were you.

I’m almost finished with The Total Money Makeover, the reading that is. I’m thinking about writing about my persona experiences on here. I’ve never been one to hold back, so I might document it in detail on here. I hope to help inspire others by being open and honest about a subject as touchy as finance. We have a bit of debt, and most people our age do. Not everyone talks about it though. I think it is comforting to know that you aren’t alone.

I had a miscarriage almost 2 years ago and immediately I was told stories from friends and family about their miscarriages. I didn’t realize how common it was, because it isn’t something that comes up in everyday conversation. But knowing that there were others who had gone through the same thing and were willing to listen definitely helped a lot.

Now, to lighten mood.

From a professional standpoint I’m more interested in directors than actors, and therefore it won’t necessarily take more than one good movie for me to strike a loyal relationship to a film-maker. Thus, when I first saw Gregg Araki’s Mysterious Skin back in 2004, I immediately began hunting down his other films. However uneven, Nowhere (1997) was a truly fascinating mess, but by investing my trust in his abilities in this way, I also set myself up for an unpleasant landing should it be that he was unable to live up to my unreasonably high expectations. Still, absolutely nothing could have prepared me for the intense pain I experienced when I watched his stoner comedy Smiley Face last year. In the early 2000’s Dude, Where’s My Car forever ruined my relationship with this (sub-) genre, but still my trust in Araki’s artistic judgement made me overlook the obvious signs that I would hate the film; Anna Farris; stoner comedy; the terrible tagline (“High. How are you?“). I was terribly wrong, of course, and I hated it even more just because I’d expected more from an obviously talented guy like Gregg Araki.

My point then, is that I haven’t necessarily learned anything from this painful experience, and that I don’t even want to. Sure, I no longer believe Araki to be invincible, but I’ll still give him a chance to win me back. His voice as a film maker and an artist is so distinct and with such a huge potential that it would be way premature of me to write him off now. In a weird way, I’m now even more interested in where his career will go next than I would have been if Smiley Face had been even remotely more to my liking. My problem with Smiley Face mainly is that I think it failed in a fairly conventional way, and I don’t want Gregg Araki to make conventional movies. His job should’ve been to turn the whole genre on its head, if only to see what came out it. In the end, I know that this movie will find its place in his total production, and hopefully, he will be able to improve his game next time around. I didn’t abandon Richard Linklater after School Of Rock, and I’m glad I didn’t, because he then went on to do Before Sunset. Likewise, I could easily have decided I’d had it with Danish star director Thomas Vinterberg (whose international breakthrough, the dark comedy The Celebration, you should watch immediately) after his barely watchable first English-language film It’s All About Love (2003), but then I would have missed the visual fireworks of Dear Wendy, the slightly anti-American gun-fetishizing satire he directed from a script by fellow Dane Lars von Trier.

And this, my patient reader, is where I planned for this blog to start, until I decided to write a sort of backstory to my conflicted feelings toward Noah Baumbach’s Margot At The Wedding (2007). You see, Baumbach too is one of those directors who made such a profound first impression on me that I blindly trusted his talent to carry the day. Every time I revisit The Squid and the Whale (2005), I discover something new about this this painfully funny middle class satire and divorce movie, brilliantly played down to even the smallest supporting role by Jeff Daniels, Laura Linney, Jesse Eisenberg, Owen Kline, William Baldwin and Anna Paquin. Much like Ang Lee in The Ice Storm or Sam Mendes in American Beauty, Baumbauch is able to extract some big but guilty laughs by simply observing the pathetic self pity with which the bruised egos of Bernard (Daniels) and Joan (Linney) fight their turf wars over the hearts and minds of their two sons Walt (Eisenberg) and Frank (Kline). The bitterness is written into their every interaction even though they fight bravely to get along for their children, and we half expect (hope for?) Baumbach to back off at any time, simply because we’re neither used to nor comfortable with watching people humiliate themselves like this.

Among many others things (a stinging social satire on the cultural elite etc.), The Squid and the Whale is a movie about shame, self-assertion and the way kids are often manipulated into fighting battles on their parents’ behalf. In one particularly revealing yet painfully funny scene, the older son, Walt, explains to Frank that he should not tell his friends about their parents divorce because he’s afraid of how that might make them look, only to discover that Frank has already told it to a couple of his friends. On a base level, Walt’s reaction may seem simply protective, but at the same time it also serves to show how his way of thinking more than any other is formed by that of his father. Instead of openly admitting to each other how hard the the divorce is to them, they pick sides between their parents, with Frank defending Joan’s every move just as vigorously as Walt defends Bernard. Down to how they speak to other people, what they speak about and how they speak about it, Baumbach’s piercing dialogues mercilessly expose how family ties sometimes can make even the smallest mistakes seem inexcusable (here, I’m not talking about cheating on your husband).

Though the rivalry between sisters Margot and Pauline in Margot At The Wedding contains some moments of the same tensions, it’s doesn’t even come close to feeling as curious, probing, moving or funny as Squid. The cause of their strained relationship remains somewhat unclear, and since I suspect that the whole story is best viewed trough that lens, I’m having trouble understanding, and more importantly, caring about their sometimes erratic behavior. I guess I said something similar about The Mudge Boy a while back, but I only harp on about how these characters are underdeveloped because I really wanted them to work better. Overdeveloped characters often become airless and predictable, but underdevelopment can be just as bad, because we start viewing them in the light of those few things and traits about them, instead of considering them truly believable, engaging peopele.

As is often a problem when I’m unable to form an emotional relationship with the main characters, that frustration trickles down to even the supporting roles, and I start to see them through the same lens as I saw Margot and Pauline. Take Malcolm (Jack Black), the man Pauline is supposed to marry. He suffers from the fact that I don’t really care about his future wife, so why should I care about him? I also feel that Jack Black is miscast in this role. On paper, his charisma might have made him seem like a natural fit to play a chronically depressed and insecure man, but in my opinion he’s never able to transcend the somewhat annoying (and mainly comic) persona he has built in his previous movies. I can’t help but feel that Black would have played a parody of Malcolm pretty much the same way. It’s no compliment to Black, and a huge problem for the movie.

This doesn’t mean I will give up on Noah Baumbach. He still has the potential to be a famed chronicler of the anxieties of the American middle class. Still, it’s disheartening to see that he just took several steps away from that goal.

Kabluey
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

Every character in this movie is pretty high-strung but somehow it all works. I’ve never seen Lisa Kudrow so broken down, including her darker characters in other indie movies, so I absolutely loved her in this. Even though she did not get as much screen time as I would have liked, she made the most of her character in each scene and by the end I felt like I got to experience her complexity even for just a little bit. Scott Prendergast, who starred, wrote and directed this film, was very good as a slacker who ultimately cares for his family even though they’re not related by blood. He’s far from perfect but I ended by really liking his character because he’s the kind of guy who continues to go on living even though his efforts aren’t good enough time and time again. His bit with the blue mascot was creative, funny, and symbolic. I thought it was interesting when Prendergast is under that mascot, he gets all the (mostly) positive attention, but when he’s just his regular old self he never gets noticed or is often picked on. I also enjoyed the soundtrack because it was deflty used during the more sensitive moments. As for its ending, it’s touching but not sappy and well-deserved by the characters. Unlike “Margot at the Wedding,” this one actually had a glimmer of light at the end of the road so I felt like the characters’ suffering had a purpose. Lastly, I’d like to note that this is the kind of movie that thrives on its imperfections–little “pointless” things like people on the bus talking or rich mothers gossiping, made this movie more interesting and unpredictable. If one is in the mood for taking a chance with a small movie, I recommend picking this up.

Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The (1974)
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

The attention to detail this film had impressed me because one doesn’t encounter that often in horror pictures. I can understand why this became a classic because it’s comedic and horrific, sometimes at the same time, and it’s inspired enough to dabble with the macabre. With its brisk pace of slightly under an hour and twenty-five minutes, the moment Leatherface appeared, the film refuses to let go of its audience. There were several highlights in this film and one of them I had mentioned already (Leatherface’s first appearance–the way he shut that door plays over and over in my head): the lead character’s (Marilyn Burns) chase from the woods to the house, Teri McMinn’s fall in the kitchen while the camera looms about and all we hear is the chicken, and the dinner scene when the grandfather was forced to hurt Burns. The last one I will never forget because the man looked about a hundred years old. Scenes like that made the movie really twisted and borderline sick. I can’t say I like the movie in a positive way but it does deserve my commendation because it’s unconventional but somehow all the disparate elements worked. Tobe Hooper, the director, knew what he was doing and his talent jumps out from the movie. All of that said, I still prefer the remake of this film because that one is more structured, had more scenes that made me jump, and it doesn’t abuse the use of women screaming. Moreover, the remake has a strong lead female (played by Jessica Biel) and a more satisfying (but less haunting) ending. The two movies are so different but comparable in many ways… and I respect them both.

Tarnation
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

Jonathan Caouette made this film for about two hundred dollars. Not only do I find that amazing, I also find it inspiring. Caouette really got creative with his storytelling: from voice-overs and fonts to home videos and photographs, all of them serve to progress the story. In a way, I got the sense that Caouette had been planning to make this film ever since he was a boy. Although the crux of this documentary is Caouette’s schizophrenic mother, I argue that this is more about Caouette’s journey from childhood to adulthood. I found it interesting that his sexuality is not a hindrance in his life, which is so unlike most LGBT films, both in fiction and non-fiction. The scenes where he would take on a particular character starting from when he was eleven blew my mind because he could act so well. I’m surprised he didn’t pursue an acting career when he turned into an adult. Still, this movie is its own worst enemy. Even though I loved Caouette’s creativity, sometimes he becomes too creative with his images to the point where they get distracting and considerably slows the story down (near the end of the feature). I liked that there were some “truths” that may seem true one minute and false the next; the unanswered questions had the same effect on me. Casual moviegoers will most likely not find this movie impressive at all because it’s really kind of an acquired taste. You watch enough movies and you get sick of the same old style and when films like this comes out, it’s refreshing and interesting. This documentary, though flawed, has a lot of heart and I feel like I got a real peek at Caouette’s life even for just a little bit. It made me want to buy a camera and start recording moments in my life. Ebert and Roeper said that Caouette edited the picture masterfully. I could not agree more.

I’m a frequent reader of other blogs. I tend to get annoyed when they don’t post regularly. And then I realize that I’m one of those people I don’t like. Only I’m worse, because I update less than they do.

I thought I’d take a moment to share with you some movie reviews, as I am wont to do. This will be a montage of very brief reviews, as opposed to my normal, longer reviews. This way I can catch you up on some of the movies I’ve seen and it gives me something to post about. It has to be more interesting than dissertation talk, right?

1. Patron Saint of Liars - Netflixed it because I read the book. Read the book, skip the movie.
2. Atonement – I normally like period movies but this was just depressing. Maybe the book is better.

A quick break… this is brought to you by Rachel Ray’s new dog food called, what else? “Nutrish.” Are you kidding me?
3. Sweeney Todd – I like dark humor just as much as the next gal, but I had to shield my delicate eyes from all the throat slashing. It was okay though. For dark humor, I recommend Very Bad Things,  unless you’re my mom or my aunt, then I don’t.
4. Margot at the Wedding - it’s hard not to laugh at Jack Black, even when he’s trying to be serious. Also the ending was*
5. Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story – sucked hard.

*Don’t you hate it when a movie ends and you feel like it’s the middle of a scene or a sentence? Yea, me too.

Purple Violets
[ 4 stars out of 4 ]

It’s funny because I’ve always seen Selma Blair as the naive girl who Sarah Michelle Gellar wanted to destroy in “Cruel Intentions” regardless of how many films I’ve seen her star in. This one is the first starring role that convinced me that Blair can be a great actress. I completely bought the quirks that comes along with her character, the things she’s going through, and where she could possibly be heading. Once this film, directed by the always engrossing Edward Burns, started I couldn’t stop watching it because all the actors have a certain energy that made me want to know more. Patrick Wilson gives another great performance as the romantic writer happens to have a certain boyish look but stuck in a relationship with someone who’s extremely emotionally unstable (played by Elizabeth Reaser). Reaser’s massive bursts of anger made me laugh out loud but at the same time felt sorry for Wilson because he appeared to be somewhat emasculated in those scenes. I’ve always loved Debra Messing from “Will & Grace” and her other films like “The Wedding Date,” but I’ve never seen her so scathing as she was in this little gem of a picture. I enjoyed the little side story between Messing and Burns because they are so opposite in personalities that it was interesting to see them interact. This is undoubtedly a romantic comedy but as I was watching it, I felt like it was a tier higher than that. The film’s core is about deeply wounded thirtysomethings who want to achieve happiness but cannot quite get there because they are not happy with themselves. I was really invested with the characters and more than half of the time, I wish I knew these people not only to offer them advice but also learn from them. This movie reminded me of high school when I had all the time in the world to just… write. It made me wish that there were more hours in the day so I could just sit down even for just an hour or two to write about anything and everything. I thought this film was funny and sad with just the right pacing, but above all, it’s honest like a good piece of literature.

Reprise (2006)
[ 3 stars out of 4 ]

I expected character depth from this film but I didn’t expect for it to look and feel low-key. Luckily, I’ve grown to appreciate low-key pictures over the years and I found it beautiful in “Reprise.” A fellow critic on Netflix claims that this movie is more for advance foreign film students because, on top of the language barrier (the whole film is spoken in Norwegian), it’s extremely difficult to relate to the characters. I disagree because even though the characters may seem like literary snobs on the outside (pretty much all they do is hang out with friends, hang out with their girlfriends and write), something deep inside them is relatable. Even though they feel jubilant whenever they experience success and get jealous when someone else is in the spotlight, the group of friends ultimately care for one another. I was impressed with Anders Danielsen Lie (who plays Phillip) and Espen Klouman-Høiner (who plays Erik) because I completely believed that they built a true friendship that started when they were children. They push each other to go on, whether it comes to writing or living life, to keep going… but at the same time they hinder each other despite their best intentions. I found the bleak look of the film to be thoroughly engaging because it added to the realism of the picture. Joachim Trier, the director, carefully molded the characters but still had time to enhance the overall feel of the film by adding voice overs and scenes that might have or could have happened. This may not be the most accessible film but what it has going for it are strong characterization and a solid medium that show the hurdles that artistic people in their twenties might face.

Married Life (2007)
[ 2 stars out of 4 ]

This picture reminded me a whole lot of “Margot at the Wedding” because they are both dark comedies with unrealized potential. There were definitely some exciting parts, such as when Chris Cooper decides and acts upon killing Patricia Clarkson, but at the same time the movie is slowed down by the romance between Pierce Brosnan and Rachel McAdams. I almost hate saying that this film is mediocre because the acting here is solid and multilayered, especially from McAdams. She lights up the screen whenever she’s in a scene which reminded me of movie stars from the 1950’s. I think I would’ve cared more about the characters if the connections between them are a lot stronger. Instead, I wanted some of the characters to suffer because of their selfishness and stupidity. I admired the film’s fusion of marriage drama and noir, which definitely summons Woody Allen’s “Match Point” but a much weaker version. I did like the film’s theme of whether it’s right to build a life of happiness on someone else’s misery. Like a well-writter paper, there were several scenes that support each side. I think if this film would’ve pushed itself a bit further like toning down the barely explored romantic angle between Brosnan and McAdams, this would have been a leaner and meaner picture. I also would’ve liked to see the true strength of Brosnan and Cooper’s friendship. Overall, this is a slow picture but isn’t necessarily a bad one. I’d recommend it to those who are craving something a little different but still somewhat mainstream.

Ho preso questo film perchè avevo letto delle recensioni positive e il cast prometteva bene… Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jack Black, John Turturro… però non sono rimasto molto soddisfatto, se da una parte la storia è valida il modo in cui viene sviluppata alla fine è stancante e risulta poco incisivo.
Margot (Nicole Kidman) insieme al figlio Claude va al matrimonio di sua sorella Pauline (Jennifer Jason Leigh)… ma una volta giunta a casa della sorella iniziano a venir fuori tensioni e provocazioni fra Margot e Pauline, fra Pauline e il futuro sposo Malcolm (Jack Black), fra la stessa Margot e il figlio… Proprio tutte queste ostilità che dovrebbero emozionare e sconvolgere pian piano stancano e diventano sempre meno coinvolgenti… tutto è troppo esagerato e i comportamenti dei vari personaggi sono “troppo folli”, tutti i protagonisti sono pazzi o comunque hanno comportamenti anormali (anche i vicini di casa) ma dove siamo in un manicomio?
Le interpretazioni non sono nulla di che… tutti si impegnano ma non lasciano il segno…
Un fim mediocre, questo è il mio modesto parere.


Voto: 6