Yes, I stole the title of my blog partly from Jane Austen and partly from Patricia Rozema. Sometimes I find this statement to be more true than I would like to admit. We shall see what of life's busy nothings will emerge on this blog.
Ok, I just don't get it. Why did this movie get so much praise? A 94% Fresh rating on rottentomatoes.com?? Did we watch the same movie? I can't even properly review this, so I'm just going to bullet point it:
Implausible plot - I'm sorry, but I just didn't believe it. There is no way that criminals that are supposed to be so good at evading the FBI could be this dumb.
Terrible acting or overacting - Seriously, what was Jon Hamm thinking? "Oh I get to NOT be Don Draper so I better chew as much scenery as possible so people can see that I CAN not be Don Draper." He was laughably bad. Blake Lively and Jeremy Renner overacted too. Ben didn't overact, but he didn't act very well. The best of the whole bunch was the late, great Pete Postlethwaite.
Cheeseball dialogue - Mainly spewed out by Jon Hamm. I guess they decided that the cheesiest actor could have the cheesiest lines like this one, "This is the not fucking around crew so get me something that looks like a print because this not fucking around thing is about to go both ways."
My favorite line in the entire movie? When Jon Hamm says to Rebecca Hall's character after the lightbulb goes off that she warned Ben Affleck away, "You know we are a NATIONAL organization." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN??? So what, she can't fool you guys because you're a NATIONAL organization? Dumbest line EVER.
So yeah, all in all I thought this film was terrible and I am completely baffled by the attention it got last year. The seeds of a good movie were there...they just didn't pull it off.
I was lucky enough to meet Duke Haney once at a party at a mutual friend's house in L.A. I remember immediately liking him and after reading this book of his personal essays I now understand why. How could you not like someone who can write about their own life with such honesty and humor and depth? There is no pretension in Duke's stories even though the life he's led would allow for some. Reading this was like talking to Duke at that party. He's just a cool guy, a nice guy, telling you a bit about himself until suddenly you find yourself completely drawn in and fascinated and you want to just let him keep talking, keep entertaining you. As I read this collection, each story I finished became my favorite story. They all feel very immediate even though some take place over twenty years ago. But if I had to choose my favorites I think they would be Cutty Sarked for it's hilarious honesty, That's What I've Been Trying to Tell You for it's tragedy, beautifully expressed and The Right Profile because I myself once had an obsession with Montgomery Clift.
So, thanks Duke. Keep telling your stories. I'll keep reading them.
Patti Smith's Just Kids is the best book I read in 2010. It's possibly the best book I've read in the last five years. In telling the story of her relationship with artist Robert Mapplethorpe, Patti illuminates for the world what it means to be an artist, a friend, a lover, and a musician. Not what it means in general, but what it means TO HER. In doing so she tells fascinating, magical, poetic, passionate, charming, heartbreaking, ecstatic, romantic, whimsical, and unbelievable stories of New York City and its eclectic inhabitants, its cherished neighborhoods, and its institutions like Max's Kansas City and the Chelsea Hotel. I can't even begin to say how much I loved this book. I never wanted it to end. I want everyone in the world to read it. And I hope Patti Smith goes on to write more books because I know she has more stories to tell.
I've read a number of reviews of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part One like this one from Cinematical.com that reviews the film from the perspective of someone who never read the books and isn't much of a fan. This is not one of those reviews. But it's also not a review from a rabid fan. I've read all the books, but I've only read each one once. I've seen all the films, but I don't rewatch every single one right before the next one is released. Of the past six films my favorite has always been number three, Prisoner of Azkaban, because Alfonso Cuaron is a magical filmmaker and I wish he'd had it in him to direct more of the Harry Potters.
With HP7 though, David Yates has really proven that ultimately the series belongs to him. I loved this film. It's of course darker than any prior entry because the stakes are the highest they've ever been and death is all around our heroic trio. I loved the brilliant Hermione who shows once again that if it wasn't for her, Harry and Ron would be lost (truthfully they would have perished a long, long time ago without her). I loved the three character actors (Sophie Thompson SQUEE!) who played Harry, Ron, and Hermione disguised by the use of Polyjuice Potion into Ministry of Magic employees. Their spot on mimicry of the young actors facial expressions and body movements lent a wonderful and welcome bit of comedy to an otherwise tense action sequence. I loved, loved, loved the animated sequence that illustrated the story of the Deathly Hallows. It was a gorgeous, exciting, and unique way to tell that important story.
I think the best testament to how much I loved this film though is that halfway through I completely forgot that it is only Part One and was shocked and dismayed when it ended! This was the first HP film in awhile that didn't FEEL as long as it was.
I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about this book. This is the first book I've ever read by Franzen and although, for the most part, I enjoyed his prose, I absolutely HATED his characters. They were all miserable people doing miserable things to one another. Occassionally I would find myself becoming sympathetic towards a character only to then have them do something so awful that I would find myself loathing them again. Call me old fashioned, but I have a hard time enjoying a book when I can't care about or root for at least one character. I will admit that Franzen turns it around a bit in the end. The last 80 pages or so I was finally compelled to FEEL for some of the characters and that was my favorite part of the book! If some of those good feelings could have been sprinkled throughout the other 500 pages of this tome I think I would have enjoyed it more. But overall this was a trying read for me. Some friends of mine have read this and absolutely loved it and they loved it for the exact same reason that I didn't. Maybe I'm just too positive and sunny of a person to allow myself to wallow in the miserableness for 500+ pages. Not that I'm trying to call my friends negative...oh geez, all this is just coming out wrong now...
Here's the gist:
- I enjoyed Franzen's evocative and painterly writing.
- I enjoyed the pop culture references which helped me feel like this story was truly of today's world, that these characters could actually be real.
- I didn't quite understand the passages that were supposed to be written as autobiography by the Patty character. Patty's autobiographical voice didn't seem any different from Franzen's voice, so that device didn't work for me.
- I wish the characters had been a bit more sympathetic throughout the story. It was hard for me sometimes to push on through because they were all so miserable that I didn't even care what happened to them.
- I'm not sure I would ever read anything else by Mr. Franzen.
Director Andrew Dominik must be a fan of Terrence Malick. His film The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford shares a lot of the same qualities of a Malick film: languidly paced, little or no dialogue in certain scenes, vast sweeping wide shots, voice over narration. Luckily, I love Malick and I loved this film. And I don't mean to compare Dominik to Malick in an insulting way or a copycat way, it just struck me that Malick must have been an influence on Dominik.
This film is long. 2 hours and 40 minutes long. Some critics have complained about the length, but I kinda loved it. It really allowed the story to unfold, diving deep into these characters and the idea of celebrity and to allow the viewer to come to terms with the true nature of Jesse James' brutality. It also allowed for an exquisite building of tension until the audience is wired and ready for the ultimate climatic explosion. I mean the title is The ASSASSINATION of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford! You know it's coming! You are waiting and waiting for it! And then it does come and the movie isn't over and that's awesome! Now we get to experience the aftermath and a new kind of celebrity.
This film is stunning in it's beauty. Gifted cinematographer Roger Deakins paints incredible murals of light and landscape. You can feel the changes in the seasons as you watch the film.
Brad Pitt, himself a ginormous celebrity, was the perfect choice to play Jesse James who was the biggest celebrity of his day. He's excellent in this...revealing little by little the downward spiral of Jesse's paranoia, his mean streak, and cold brutality. Casey Affleck shows us something in his Robert Ford that I've never seen from him before as an actor: effortlessness and subtlety. He portrays the giddiness and sadness of a man who never outgrew his childhood hero worship with amazing sincerity. The supporting cast is just as accomplished as the two leads: Sam Rockwell, Paul Schneider, Jeremy Renner, Mary-Louis Parker, Garret Dillahunt, Sam Shepard. They all embody their roles, big and small, with an honesty and passion.
I encourage you all to rent this film. Don't be intimidated by the length. Pop yourself some popcorn, open a can of soda, sink yourself into the deepest corner of your sofa and spend an evening letting this story unfold in front of you. It's worth the time.
A few weeks ago I got the rare privilege of seeing one of my favorite bands of all time play a house party in my hometown of Las Vegas. I fell in love with Trashcan Sinatras back in 1990. I was a proud subscriber to one Sassy Magazine which had a monthly column called "Cute Band Alert." One month Trashcan Sinatras was the "cute band" and I immediately bought their debut album, Cake. I have been a loyal Trashcan fan ever since. Although they never broke big in the U.S. they do have a strong cult following of which these house parties were born. You can read about the first house party they played in Portland, OR here. When I heard through their official band newsletter that TCS would be playing a Vegas house party, I didn't balk at the $100 price tag, but instead looked at it as the opportunity to see for the first time a band I've loved for twenty years in an intimate and unique setting.
Now that I have had the experience I would have paid double that. I arrived an hour before the show start time with a dozen cupcakes from Retro Bakery and a case of Stella Artois. Yes, this party was pot luck and byob. The first thing I noticed as I came through the door was lead singer Frank Reader wandering around the house talking on a cell phone!!! I introduced myself to the few people in the room and then stood quietly, sipping a beer, and trying not to appear as excited as I felt as I noticed other band members mingling about.
The show itself consisted of two stripped down sets. Stephen Douglas played on a limited drums/percussion setup, Paul Livingston played an electric guitar, Frank Reader and John Douglas played acoustic guitars. They used no bass guitar. Lee Grant, our party host, was invited to play his own piano with the band on one song, A Coda. The forty-five or so guests stood or sat in folding chairs in a semi-circle around the band. The band was friendly, surprisingly funny, and seemed genuinely pleased to be playing for us all.
There was a break after the first set and I went onto the back porch where I had a smoke and some conversation with John Douglas and was soon joined by Stephen Douglas and Paul Livingston, who bummed a few drags off my cigarette. I offered him his own, but he only wanted a few drags off mine, if that was all right. It was. We shared a smoke. We all talked about their tour, which was ending soon, about Scotland (where Stephen and John still live) and L.A. (where Paul and Frank now live) about Las Vegas, and about music of course. Paul Livingston said the first concert he ever went to was The Smiths (!) in '85 or '86. There was then much discussion about Johnny Marr as a guitarist and how it seems that he's never been able to shine as much as he did with The Smiths and why don't they just get back together already! I eventually got up the courage to explain my discovery of them through Sassy magazine, which Stephen laughed at and said he actually remembered, although he would have called them scruffy back then rather than cute.
After a longer second set where the ease and comfort between band and audience grew to a level that really brought home to everyone what a special and unique experience this really was, the night ended. The band started tearing down their equipment but were also very happy to sign posters, t-shirts, or anything else you might want them to sign, and take pictures with people. They also sold flash drives with the audio of concert we had just witnessed burned to them. They are trying to make a bit of money after all. I bought a poster, had each band member sign it, bought a flash drive, and a t-shirt that reads, Trashcan Sinatras - Legendary Scottish Band. How awesome is that?
Here's the setlist followed by photos of the show and a video of Lee playing piano on A Coda with the band:
First Set
Easy On The Eye
All The Dark Horses
Wild Mountainside
Only Tongue Can Tell
The Safecracker
Easy Read
I Wish You'd Met Her
I Hung My Harp Upon The Willows
How Can I Apply?
Hayfever
Unfortunate Age
Second Set
Got Carried Away
Send For Henny
In The Music
Prisons
Earlies
Drunken Chorus
To Sir With Love
Weightlifting
I See The Moon
I've Seen Everything
Oranges and Apples
People
A Coda
Obscurity Knocks
The Best Man's Fall
Trashcan Sinatras: Legendary Scottish Band
From left to right: Stephen Douglas, Paul Livingston, Frank Reader, John Douglas
Lee Grant at piano, John Douglas
Mr. Frank Reader
Sharing some beers and smokes at intermission. That's me smiling all goofily at Paul Livingston.
Frank signing my posters. I'm probably saying something very gushy and ridiculous.
Me and Paul Livingston, he was super sweet. They all were.
I went eagerly to see Mark Romanek's film adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's novel Never Let Me Go. I haven't read the novel so I went into the film somewhat blind, having tried to avoid as much as I could any details of the story, because I knew that the story had a secret. I expected the film to look beautiful and to be finely acted but I didn't expect it to be so profoundly sad. This is a story that explores big ideas of identity and the soul and one's worth and cruelty and the lengths humans could go in the name of science. It explores these big ideas, but it explores them quietly, thoughtfully, and seemingly without providing any answers to all the questions generated. I was deeply touched by this film. I bawled my eyes out and that is mainly due to the talented young cast of Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and especially Andrew Garfield who continues to amaze me with his honesty on film. Even if he hadn't been cast as the new Spiderman, that kid would have a damn fine future ahead of him.
This was my fourth time seeing Interpol live. Two of the three previous shows were absolutely spectacular with fantastic energy, eye popping light sequences, and pure crowd love. One of the previous shows was a short set, two days after they had played Coachella, a quick stopover as they essentially "tried out" some of the tracks for their forthcoming album and it felt exactly like what it was: a practice run. It was a letdown.
I was a little worried going into this show because their new self-titled fourth album is not really doing it for me. But I shouldn't have let my worries get the best of me. This is a tight band that knows how to put on a good show. They are also one of the few bands that seem to truly enjoy playing Vegas and lead singer Paul Banks is vocal in letting us know it. In addition I was a little concerned about Carlos D leaving the band. Would the lack of his prescence be noticeable? He was such a striking figure, a true individual character in a band with plenty of character as a whole, not to mention his throbbing bass lines that provided the crux of so many of their songs. But honestly, his absence did not affect the band's performance. I've always enjoyed watching guitarist Daniel Kessler's manic on stage movement the most anyway. He glides back and forth and side to side on his quick feet until you are suprised that he can move like that and play at the same time!
Overall the setlist consisted of five songs from their first album Turn on the Bright Lights, six from their second breakthrough and most popular album Antics, only one lonely song from their third outing Our Love to Admire, and a full six off their new self titled fourth album. I will first say that the songs off the new album sounded much better live and actually made me want to give the album more of a chance. Secondly, hearing live seven songs from their latter two albums and eleven songs from their earlier two albums ultimately reveals the difference between the two parts of their career so far: their early work contains a palpable energy, propulsion, and ROCK that their latter work is lacking. It's not that there new work is not as good as their older work, but it is decidedly different to my ears and I prefer the raw intensity of their first two albums to the rather lanquid unfolding of their last two.
But Interpol is a very smart band. They obviously know that my opinion is the same opinion as a lot of their fans and they rewarded our loyalty by playing a setlist that consisted of over 60% older songs.
And I thank them for it.
Setlist (for those of you into that kind of thing):
Success (Interpol)
Say Hello to the Angels (Turn on the Bright Lights)
C'mere (Antics)
Memory Services (Interpol)
Rest My Chemistry (Our Love to Admire)
Summer Well (Interpol)
Narc (Antics)
Evil (Antics)
Untitled (Turn on the Bright Lights)
Barricade (Interpol)
Lights (Interpol)
Slow Hands (Antics)
PDA (Turn on the Bright Lights)
Try it On (Interpol)
Not Even Jail (Antics)
Encore:
NYC (Turn on the Bright Lights)
Take You on a Cruise (Antics)
Obstacle I (Turn on the Bright Lights)
I loved Eugenides' first book The Virgin Suicides. It had a dreamy nostalgia to it that appealed to me and I could really FEEL his setting and his characters.
I don't know why it took me so long to pick up his second, Pulitzer Prize winning novel, Middlesex, but now that I've read it I must say I'm quite disappointed. As sprawling family sagas go, it had compelling characters and a very unique story to tell, but for me it meandered too much, got lost on its tangents and continually dropped focus on the most interesting character of all: narrator Cal Stephanides. It frustrated me when Eugenides would give a little snippet of Cal's story that would excite me and then veer off again and tell another involved story about a side character that I never cared for as much as I cared about Cal. If Eugenides had edited about 200 pages out of this story it would have received five stars from me. As is, it was a bit of a chore to read and it didn't compel my full page turning attention until the last 150 pages or so. Once he finally let the family history go and focused directly on Cal's self discovery I loved the book. I'm just sorry I couldn't love the entire book as much as I loved the last part of it.
I was lucky enough to score an ARC of Jonathan Evison’s West of Here and I have to admit that it surprised me. I knew the man could write, his first novel All About Lulu was a lovely coming of age story told with a unique voice that I liked a lot. But Lulu in no way prepared me for the staggering scope of West of Here.
Set in the fictional town of Port Bonita, Washington, the book follows two timelines. The first timeline begins in 1889 and focuses on Port Bonita's founding and the damming of the Elwha River which gave the town its identity and life. This timeline is filled with men and women of vision and purpose, the world wide open to them if only they can make the right decisions. The second timeline is in the modern year 2006 and follows the descendants of those original founders. But for them, Port Bonita is no longer thriving, the dam no longer their salvation but their downfall. These men and women would like to have the same sense of purpose their ancestors did, but first they must somehow reconcile their past with their future. It might be time for Port Bonita and its inhabitants to make a change.
Jonathan Evison writes colorfully with a lot of humor and genuine affection for his many characters – not one written with anything less than absolute vibrancy and depth. The Washington wilderness itself is a character and his descriptions of it are so effortless and beautiful, you trust that he KNOWS this landscape. He makes you feel it.
The story itself is propulsive. At the beginning you will slowly begin to know the characters and follow them on their paths, learning more and more about them as you turn the pages, then the plot will start to take a strong hold and pretty soon you will be unable to put the book down until you find out what everyone’s destinies will be, until you are finished with the book and sad that it’s over.
I am intrigued by the amount of research that went into the writing of this novel. What is factual and what is imagination? I want to look into the history of the area myself and learn everything I can about it. It’s that pioneer spirit and sense of adventure that captures my attention and imbues in me a childlike sense of wonder at the vastness of things.
So, thanks to Jonathan Evison for writing such a spectacular book. I think this novel is going to be big for him. I’ll definitely be buying at least one copy when it is officially released and I encourage you to do so too.
Water For Elephants was just what I wanted in a book right now: an easy read, fun, romantic, with a unique setting. Sara Gruen's research into the life of long forgotten train circuses and America in the 1930s was obviously extensive and the way she used her knowledge in the writing of the book was loving and playful and made me want to learn more about it. There were a few things that I looked up, curious to know if they were the author's invention or actual historical facts that she incorporated into her story. For example, I had never heard of "Jake Leg" before and commend her for revealing in the context of her book parts of American history that most people must be unfamiliar with. The characters were well drawn and the fictional Circus she created was completely believable. I loved the photographs that accompanied each chapter which added to the believablity of her story. I would recommend this book to anyone looking to immerse themselves in a good old fashioned yarn filled with romance and even a little danger.
I'm not sure why this novel is considered the "lesser" of the Austen novels. It's brilliantly funny and contains wonderful satire of the gothic romance novels popular at the time and the silly games that suitors play with one another. Through the character of Isabella Thorpe, Austen reveals the damages that can come from a deceptively manipulative friendship. It is only when our heroine Catherine Morland becomes independent from Isabella's influence that she can realize that she wasn't a true friend at all.
I have great affection for Catherine Morland. It is true that she's the least intelligent of Austen's heroine's but that's because this is a true coming of age story. We get to see her journey from naive young girl, to an independent young women, through her profound life experiences. And Henry Tilney is a great hero because even when he is amused and befuddled by Catherine, he does everything he can spare her feelings and to lead her in the sensible direction. Plus he's really funny.
It has been years since I'd read this book and I forgot how many of Austen's best quotes come from it! Here are just a few:
"But when a young lady is to be a heroine, the perverseness of forty surrounding families cannot prevent her. Something must and will happen to throw a hero in her way."
"Friendship is certainly the finest balm for the pangs of disappointed love."
"I cannot speak well enough to be unintelligible."
Catherine's thoughts on reading History:
"I read it a little as a duty, but it tells me nothing that does not either vex or weary me. The quarrels of popes and kings, with wars or pestilences, in every page; the men all so good for nothing, and hardly any women at all – it is very tiresome: and yet I often think it odd that it should be so dull, for a great deal of it must be invention. The speeches that are put into the heroes’ mouths, their thoughts and designs – the chief of all this must be invention, and invention is what delights me in other books."
And my all time favorite Austen quote, as spoke by the wonderful Henry Tilney:
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel must be intolerably stupid."
MicMacs had the same quirky characters and complicated plotline but it all felt rushed and almost like Jeanet was just going through the motions. It's as if he was trying to give us what is expected of him, but without the passion and heart of some of his other films. The characters weren't as deeply drawn as they needed to be. They didn't feel connected to one another, so how was I supposed to feel connected to them?
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
I've become addicted to Chelsea Lately on the E! Channel, so when I saw this book on sale I picked it up. It was a fun read. Ms. Handler writes exactly how she talks so after watching her late night show for months now, it was easy to hear her perfectly in my head as I read about her sexual exploits. Her stories are brash, honest, sometimes dirty, often embarrassing, and laugh out loud funny. She obviously had no fear of what people might think about her after reading this book, and I admire her for that.
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Ultimately I really liked this book, but it wasn't immediately clear that I was going to feel that way about it. As it began I was leery of the many philosophical digressions that peppered its pages. I'm not well read in philosophy and I was worried it was all going to be over my head or make my eyes roll at such grand ideas. But eventually I got used to the ramblings, and even started to enjoy them. Besides, the ramblings lessened as the plot progressed and then I became more and more attached to the characters and eager to know how they would intersect and how everything was going to work out for them.
I was also very attracted to the pop culture references throughout the book and have taken notes on movies to rent and music to listen to and paintings to look at.
I read Anna Karenina last year and was thrilled when references to it were laced throughout The Elegance of the Hedgehog. But don't think that if you haven't read Anna Karenina that your enjoyment of this book would be diminished. I don't think you have to have read, or watched, or listened to, or looked at, every book, or movie, or song, or painting that is referenced in this story. But once you've finished reading this, you can go find these things (as I will) and therefore enhance your overal experience with this story and enhance your life as well.
I developed a wicked girl crush on Zooey Deschanel after seeing her in Cameron Crowe's incredible rock n' roll film Almost Famous oh so many years ago. Seriously, that came out in 2000 - it's been a DECADE! Her part was small, but she was adorable. Shortly after seeing her in the now Christmas movie staple, Elf, in which she revealed to the world that she had an incredible set of pipes I learned that she had her own musical cabaret act that performed around L.A. AND she was rumoured to play Janis Joplin in a biopic (which never came to fruition). It was no surprise to me then, when she joined forces with M. Ward to form the band She & Him.
Their first album, simply titled Volume 1, was very good - a sweet amalgam of sunshiny California pop, the classic girl group sound, and an occasionally jazzy vocalist vibe. It was fun to hear Zooey singing her own lyrics, although sometimes her voice sounded a little tentative as if she wasn't entirely sure she should be sharing her songs with the world.
Now the duo has released their second album, aptly titled, Volume 2 and its' not just good - it's FANTASTIC. Zooey's tentativeness is gone; she's now a fully formed and confident singer. It isn't a departure from the first album, it's the same sunshiny, girl groupy, jazzy pop music, but it's more consistent, more fully realized, more layered, just MORE MORE MORE. It's music that makes me HAPPY. And that's the best review I can give anything.
It seems like Michael Sheen is everywhere right now! He's in the ever pop culturally present Twilight franchise as Aro, the super baddie vampire. I've seen him on a bunch of talk shows recently promoting his small role as the White Rabbit in Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. He was amazingly fabulous in a two episode stint on this season of 30 Rock as Liz Lemon's "Future Husband" - a daffy, delightful storyline that I wish had gone on longer. Frost/Nixon has been playing a lot on cable and he can be spotted in the new trailer for Disney's highly anticipated Tron Legacy. Plus, I follow him on twitter where lately he's been tweeting links to music he loves (The Specials, Roy Orbison, Son House, The Duke Spirit). Then my boyfriend and I netflixed a British football (soccer) film called The Damned United and guess what? Michael Sheen is the star.
Not only is he the star of The Damned United he is absolutely brilliant in it playing notorious British football manager Brian Clough with a mix of arrogance and earnestness and a glint in his eye. The movie was not at all what I expected it to be. It's not a "thrill of the game" sports movie, there aren't a lot of scenes even filmed on the pitch. It's a behind the scenes film about what is involved when a sports manager runs a successful (or struggling) team: the money, the politics, the team owners, the players, the media. In fact, if I had to categorize this film at all I would call it a love story. The film centers around Brian Clough's relationship with his assistant manager and best friend, Peter Taylor, played by the always excellent Timothy Spall. Their relationship is loving and mutually beneficial, until it isn't. When their relationship sours, your heart breaks for them, and you keep watching in anticipation to see if they will get back together.
With a wonderfully sharp script by Peter Morgan that takes a convoluted sports story and focuses it in on the human relationships within that world, The Damned United was a pleasure to watch.
This film left me with a profound feeling of "meh." Therefore, I'm not going to do a proper review. I'm going to bullet point this beyotch.
Things I liked:
The Cheshire Cat - Indeed, this was my favorite part of the film. Stephen Fry's voice work was perfectly delicious and the smokey, now he's here, now he's gone animation was delightful.
Crispin Glover - I adore this man and am just happy to see him get some work. I didn't love the awkward stretching effect they used on his character, but I liked him.
And we've come to the end of the things I liked. Sad, isn't it?
Things I didn't like:
Johnny Depp's Mad Hatter - I'm just sick of him and his silly, lispy, whackadoo characterizations. I just didn't get his Mad Hatter at all. I think he and Burton need to take a break from one another. It's like they aren't GOOD for one another anymore.
The Wizard of Ozness - Am I the only one who felt they ripped off The Wizard of Oz? First there were people in Alice's real life that were obviously supposed to mirror folks in Wonderland, "and you were there, and you, and you!" Secondly, they totally turned the Mad Hatter into Alice's Scarecrow, "Mad Hatter I'll miss you most of all!" Blurgh.
Alice - Did that actress snooze her way through that role? She was so boring. I felt no sense of urgency in the character.
Anne Hathaway's Hands - PUT YOUR ARMS DOWN! I get what she was trying to do - kind of satirically making fun of Disney princesses, but honestly? Amy Adams already did it and much better in Enchanted.
The battle scene - There were several times during this film where I nearly dozed off, but shouldn't battles be more exciting? If you feel it necessary to have a battle in Wonderland in the first place. I really hated that entire plotline, which was pretty much the entire movie, so yeah.
I had never even heard of The Last Station until Oscar nominations came out and even then, I didn't know what the film was about. It was only after I started seeing the clips during various awards ceremonies that I discovered it was about writer Leo Tolstoy. Having read Anna Karenina about a year and a half ago, I was very interested to see this film.
The film centers on Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a young Tolstoyan, who is handpicked by Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), Tolstoy's closest friend and the overseer of his legacy, to act as private secretary to Leo Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) himself. In truth, Chertkov wants Valentin to keep tabs on Tolstoy's wife Sofya Tolstaya (Helen Mirren). Nearing the end of his life there is a battle raging for control of Tolstoy's literary legacy. Chertkov wants it to be willed to Russia and its people, while Sofya wants it to remain with the family to ensure future financial stability. Poor Valentin is just eager to work on a daily basis with the man who inspired his way of living, but instead he gets drawn into the household drama and doesn't know which way his allegiance should lie.
Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren were both nominated for Oscars for their roles as the Tolstoys and it is well deserved. They give powerful performances, full of drama, romance, heartbreak, wistfulness, vulnerability, and mischief - perfectly matched, neither one outshines the other. Next to those incredible actors, James McAvoy is once again overlooked by the people who give out the awards despite the fact that he gives a wonderfully realized and touching performance as the naive, earnest secretary, seemingly in over his head.
Aside from the struggle over Tolstoy's literary legacy, this film is really about love. The well worn love between a man and wife who have been together for decades, the new love blooming between two young people who share ideals, the question of whether love can be too powerful, too all consuming for one's own good?
I am woefully ignorant of Russian history and although I have read Anna Karenina, it was not an easy read, and I still don't know as much about Tolstoy as I would like. But even with my small familiarity, I was pleased to recognize some things in the film that were little nods to his work. For example, Sofya tells Valentin that Tolstoy wrote her a letter before they were married that recounted all his past indiscretions, just as Levin made Kitty read his diarires before they were married in Anna Karenina. I also know that at the time of his death Tolstoy was the most famous author in the world and this is shown in the film by the "paparazzi" (I used quotes for this word since this film takes place in 1910, at least 50 years before "paparazzi" came to be a used term) camped outside his family estate. He and his family can't go out of doors without being photographed or pestered for a quote for the newspapers. It's a rather fun little side story in this many layered film.
According to the official website, The Last Station was filmed mainly in Germany and it's stunningly beautiful. There are a lot of shots outdoors and the forests and fields and ponds are all captured in a golden/green light that shimmers with a heaviness that can almost be felt on your skin. There was one outdoors scene in particular between Plummer and McAvoy that felt almost suffocating in its headiness and the overwhelming number of insects flying around their heads. The only thing I could think about as I watched it was it must have been a horrid shooting day.
Apparently this film is based on a novel by the same name by Jay Parini. It's a mix of fact and fiction and is inspired by the diaries kept by several members of the Tolstoy household. I'm now eager to read it.
